You'll Have To Buy Your Hamster In Oakland
My mom wouldn't let me have a dog growing up, but I was allowed to have a hamster. I remember him fondly. His name was Squeaky, and I taught him to do somersaults over a pencil. Unfortunately, my sisters took him outside when I wasn't home, and the neighbors' little girl sat on him.
Okay, enough with my hamster horror, now onto the fruits and nuts -- those in charge in San Francisco of the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare. Carolyn Jones writes for the SF Chron:
Sell a guinea pig, go to jail.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."
Clearly, these nitwits have brains on par with those of hamsters. People aren't going to stop euthanizing small animals -- they'll just euthanize small animals they've bought from pet store owners in nearby cities who haven't been run out of business by the clueless numpties in charge in San Francisco.
UPDATE: The measure has been tabled -- after several hours of hearings.
Man San Fransisco is whole other world! Can not wait till you here the "psst buddy wanna buy a mouse'. Or the guy riding around on a bicycle mumbling "puppies for sale" as he rides slowly by.
This level of political correctness is what makes California at times a laughing stock. It is almost a joke.
"Did you hear about the city that outlawed selling pets"
"Wow. Really!"
"Yea. In California in San...."
"Oh... Never mind" They are all really weird in California"
At least Californians are not like Floridians.
John Paulson at July 9, 2010 2:15 AM
Don't fish deserve protection too? What about all those people who buy fish as an impulse, then get tired of them and flush them! They're sea-kittens, after all.
momof4 at July 9, 2010 6:01 AM
Let's not get hysterical.
There's nothing in the ordinance about chia pets.
jerry at July 9, 2010 6:08 AM
Will they come for my pet rock, Barack?
MarkD at July 9, 2010 6:16 AM
Does this mean I will have to drive to Oakland or San Jose to buy live guinea pigs and mice to feed to my snakes?
The SF Bay acts as a positive feed back reverb chamber for the insanity that echoes back and forth between Berzerkeley and SF.
I am waiting for the day when the SF council tries to make vegetarianism mandatory, and legislate gender preference.
Jack Simeonov at July 9, 2010 6:34 AM
Hah, Jack, my husband pointed out last night that if SanFran doesn't want to euthanize hamsters, why don't they just give them to the snake owners?
Astra at July 9, 2010 6:45 AM
Obviously PETA have finally found a government compliant enough to push their anti-pet agenda.
When the number of animals for euthanasia don't drop, they'll ban pet ownership next.
And then the dog owners will come down on them like a ton of shit. Ought to be fun to watch.
brian at July 9, 2010 7:20 AM
Give the hamsters to snake owners? why, when you can sell the little dears and get something back?
I guess that's too near to capitalism for those godless commies.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 9, 2010 7:20 AM
Just to point out that this is nothing new. That progressive slut puppy Naci Peloci (don't give a shit about how she spells it) want to push through H.R. 669: Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Now as with most government acts the more innocuous it sounds the nastier it is. This will in effect halt ALL animal import AND state side breading of non native species. Then an underfunded federal agency will review each species individually. Except cats, dogs and gold fish.
This is done to prevent pythons in Florida (which are already established locally) and the dreaded norther snake head (established locally after they were released for commercial use in eastern (bull shit) medicine).
"Does this mean I will have to drive to Oakland or San Jose to buy live guinea pigs and mice to feed to my snakes?" Actually you can get mice shipped in bulk from AFRMA. Unless you only need one or two every so often, then your sol. You can get frozen sinec there is a ban on shipping warm blooded animals through the mail. I get crickets and califirnia black worms vie e-mail order.
vlad at July 9, 2010 7:31 AM
BTW hamsters are used as snake food of last resort due to price for most herpers. For larger herpes I've seen chickens used since guniee pigs get pricey. And live chickens can be shipped through the mail.
vlad at July 9, 2010 7:34 AM
My god ... why not just take down the statue of liberty and be done with it.
Lobster at July 9, 2010 8:36 AM
The measure was tabled. I can't find any evidence that there was any serious likelihood that would be even be passed by the animal control board, let alone the board of supervisors, who are far more pro-business than people outside San Francisco like to think. People propose nitwit bills all of the time, but don't be misled that this had any real chance of becoming law.
Christopher at July 9, 2010 8:41 AM
San Francisco gerbils, at least for a moment, breathed a sigh of relief that they may not end up in Mr. Slave's ass.
Eric at July 9, 2010 8:50 AM
You Kidz in Cali still have a massive financial crisis looming, right?
Just checkin'!
Robert W. (Vancouver) at July 9, 2010 9:56 AM
H.R. 669 would, in effect, wipe out several species of parrots. Habitat destruction and poaching has drastically reduced wild parrots, and without hobbyist breeders we will be quickly looking at the end of several species. Luckily, us bird folk are not quiet people and I haven't heard anything about this bill in several months.
I went to a lot of work looking for a male for my Great Billed Parrot and there simply are none for sale in the U.S. I had even started the research to have one imported for her. For three years, she was (besides my husband) my best friend in the whole wide world. We conversed about life, death, and everything in between. We lost her a few months ago, to an illness that commonly kills her species, but is currently undetectable because of our lack of knowledge about this species. It hurts me inside to know that some hippie politician would dare come between my birds and myself. Or worse, let a species as special as the Great Billed Parrot go extinct because of some things other parrots have done. (San Fransisco's Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill)
Just more proof, that if we aren't constantly vigilant, they will take away everything that we value, just cause they have nothing else better to do.
Cat at July 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Actually they're on to something. A bit clumsy for sure but the underlying rationale is sound. I've had dogs and other pets for 40 years, and I've never "bought" any of them; only adopted and rescued, from all those irresponsible ordinary people who trade pets like disposable toys. I hate humans. (Most of them anyway).
Alan at July 9, 2010 10:28 AM
> You Kidz in Cali
FUCK Canada.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2010 10:31 AM
> You Kidz in Cali
FUCK Canada.
Shhh... It became apparent to me in a previous thread that Robert possesses a deep understanding of our state's political and budgetary crisis; I'm sure practicable solutions are coming forthwith.
Christopher at July 9, 2010 10:50 AM
Sounds like the San Fran people are just trying to one-up Oakland, which just got finished with the spectacle of rioting and looting in response to a *guilty* verdict against a cop who killed a brother.
Lunacy seems to begin on the left coast, though unfortunately it never seems to end there.
cpabroker at July 9, 2010 11:21 AM
Cat: The parrots of Telegraph Hill have nothing to do with HR669. While there they are not harming local wildlife. She started this due to herptilogical imports into Peurto Rico and a few other south east Asian species. Also Florida with Ball Pythons. The Great Billed Parrot (Tanygnathus megalorynchos) are not even threatened and listed a LC. Do you mean one of the sub species that are listed as CITES II?
It keep s coming up time and again.
While I agree with the principle of what they are trying to do it won't work. First being the food animals like mice and rats. This would cause multiple surrenders of carnivorous reptiles, or euthanasia. As far as cats and dogs as strays it won't have the desired effect. Most people willing to shell out 100-200 dollars for a pet shop cat will keep it. Most of the cats in our local shelter are either born strays or abandoned by force of circumstance. Our Pure Bread Circus trick trained American Eskimo with perfect breed conformation (as per a champion breeder) was not dropped off because someone was got tired of him. We have 3 cats, 1 dog and one bearded dragon, 2 from SPIN which has an adoption center in a pet store, on street kitten, the dog from a municipal shelter, and the lizard from relatives having to move. I'm a staunch supporter of animal welfare but this won't help. I think it will only reduce the number of those in following generations that have a love for critters.
vlad at July 9, 2010 11:31 AM
> You Kidz in Cali
FUCK Canada.
BTW grand master of wisdom and enlightenment pets are taxed where as food for indigent long pig breeders is not. So banning the pets would back fire catastrophically revenue wise, jobs too.
vlad at July 9, 2010 11:34 AM
I think it might cause more spur of the moment purchases. Lets say I live in San Fan and am thinking of purchasing a dog. I am in Mountain View and happen to stop into a pet store there. I see dog I like...I want to think about...but then I decided I don't want to have to drive down again (it takes time and gas and I am an environmentally aware) so I just purchase the dog.
If instead, I had been shopping down the street I am much more likely to take my time because it is no big deal to go back later.
The Former Banker at July 9, 2010 1:30 PM
I have never purchased a pet at a shop other than a parakeet, which wasn't the healthiest of critters when I got it home. Other pets like cats came from shelters who visited my home to make sure I was a responsible human. Pet shop owners won't do that.
However I also know people who got their dogs from breeders, and those animals STILL had problems, hip issues and behavioral issues. IF you go to a shelter you can "interview" the animals and talk with the staff about it.
vi at July 9, 2010 3:00 PM
San Francisco gerbils, at least for a moment, breathed a sigh of relief that they may not end up in Mr. Slave's ass.
The Gimp is disappointed.
Pirate Jo at July 9, 2010 3:21 PM
Amy said:
Who knew Amy is guilty of a hamster hate crime.
Hey Skipper at July 9, 2010 5:10 PM
FUCK CANADA
I expected much more from crid. Sigh....
Anyhoo. I slightly disagree about people who buy pets usually keep them. We in the west are becoming a touch more selfish. We want are MTV now. Or that nice new Ipod 25gx29 what the f ever.... But once we have it is good until the better thing comes along. So now we do have pets being abandoned or neglected by people who just got a pet due to a fad or poor bloody impulse control.
Two animals come to mind that are both fads that have caused problems with abuse and abandonment. Australian Sugar Gliders and Owls.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/7443887.stm
Then lets talked about Holiday animals. Every fucking Easter we get people that to be cute and in touch with season decide lets get that cute wittle rabbit or that baby chick. A few weeks later mom is sick of taking care of a rabbit because junior got tired/bored of it. But they just caaaaannn't kill it, so bam it is dropped it off a a shelter (me I would find a nice German restaurant to drop if off at). OR cute chick turn in an not so cute chicken. But people not being brave enough to break chickens neck and pluck it decide to drop it off a shelter more able to deal with cats and dogs.
Me I disagree that laws can should not always be created willy nilly, but something should be done to slow or stops this kind of bad behavior. Still this San Fransisco law sounds to over the top. Trying to swat a fly with a car.
John Paulson at July 9, 2010 7:09 PM
How is California like a box of cereal?
Take out all the fruits and nuts and all you're left with is the flakes.
Everyday they prove more and more that sense isn't common.
Jim P. at July 9, 2010 8:36 PM
Just a note: everyone who posted since Amy added the update regarding the motion being tabled is basing their ridicule of California on a motion that lacked sufficient suppor that its supporters couldn't even get a vote on it, a fact that should indicate to anyone who follows state & local politics (which I hope includes everyone reading here) that this measure was entirely lacking in meaningful support (even if some idiots were able to make some noise by it).
People propose stupid stuff all the time. They might even succeeed in getting stuff aired at council meetings. That's democracy. Let's expend our efforts on issues where they might make a difference.This ain't one of them.
Christopher at July 9, 2010 10:37 PM
This wasnt "aired" at a council meeting. It was discused for several hours. Several meaning 5-8.
And any measure which threatens to unilaterally destroy dozens of business with a stroke of a pen is something that needs to be discussed. Otherwise that same pen might one day destroy your life and livelyhood because people felt that your issue was not worth the effort of making a difference
lujlp at July 10, 2010 2:14 AM
Christopher -
The very fact that "People propose stupid stuff all the time" is the primary issue here.
The goal is to make sure that the people in government are afraid to think stupid thoughts, ultimately reducing the power and scope of said governments.
Exposing these idiots for what they are has to be done loudly and often. Every time they let something this stupid fall out of their pie-hole, we need to slam it back in their faces -- hard.
Just because it got dropped from official discussion does not make it over. They'll simply wait until they think its blown over and pass it under cover of darkness. That's how these assholes work.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
brian at July 10, 2010 6:44 AM
Yeah, according to the article, this idea has been brewing for two years and was originally geared to end dog and cat sales. What they failed to realize was that there were only a couple stores selling dogs and cats in San Francisco, and shelters weren't having dog and cat problems!
What next? Banning hot dog vendors for immorally selling processed dog meat? I gotta tell ya.
Jason S. at July 10, 2010 9:29 AM
Perhaps I'm overly sanguine about this issue. In this case, the anti-pet shop proposal failed in the venue most likely to be sympathetic to it: the Commission on Animal Welfare. Even if it had succeeded there, it is quite unlikely that the Board of Supervisors would have approved it. While the Supes are quite liberal socially, they don't make a habit of approving laws that close businesses (to the contrary, the most powerful faction on the board has been quite active in promoting business-friendly projects that have done a lot of good in formerly run-down areas). The anti-pet shop faction got to make some noise, but my perspective is that it signified little more than a few twerps' ludicrous desires, and had no chance of depriving business owners of the their livelihood.
But hey, if mocking these folks publicly helps avoid that spectacle again, I guess that's not nothing.
Christopher at July 10, 2010 10:51 AM
Full frontal lobotomies for all Californians?
Waste of taxpayer dollars?
A. Wasting taxpayer dollars is what California does.
B. Who would notice a difference anyways?
Sorry Miss Alkon, I love your work and all that, but California politics has got to be the stupidest in the country. (It does have a few rivals for that "top spot" but not many.
Robert at July 10, 2010 10:54 AM
(It does have a few rivals for that "top spot" but not many.)
Chicago and New York instantly spring to mind.
Jim P. at July 10, 2010 5:00 PM
For crazy laws and very liberal policies you can not beat California, New York comes second. For stupid people and stupid situations you can not beat Florida.
John Paulson at July 10, 2010 6:28 PM
"People propose stupid stuff all the time."
Oh well that's OK then! Why didn't you say so! That makes this *completely* OK. And there my *main* worry was that this was unusual.
On whose dime did this commission come up with these stupid ideas? How many people elsewhere are we paying salaries in order to just sit and come up with more stupid ideas?
"The very fact that "People propose stupid stuff all the time" is the primary issue here"
The more surrounded we are by stupid liberty-infringing ideas, the more people become brainwashed to think that such ideas are normal. Every time such ideas come up they should be treated with the same level of sheer revolting shock and disgust, since that *is* the appropriate response .. anything less inadvertently legitimises them.
Lobster at July 11, 2010 7:12 PM
All you Florida haters beware:
http://cbs4.com/local/florida.internet.defamation.2.1757692.html
Bob H at July 25, 2010 9:18 AM
Leave a comment