San Francisco's new pet law

[ravennr]

i have a strong feeling that if the law were changed to boost up the minimum requirements for pet ownership, which some puppy mills do in fact meet, which is why they are not shut down, people would complain that that is also governing us too far. in any new law, someone out there is going to whine that it is infringing on the rights of the people. it is inevitable. everyone is going to have an opinion.

something being legal isnt a reason not to control it in certain areas. by that logic, we should wipe out a load of the laws that are already out there that most people have no issues with at all because of the good that follows. so that in itself isnt the best argument to use.

 

[release the hounds]

ok, for all you supporters of the ban, what happens in 2 years or 5 years when they realize the puppy mills are still in business, just selling on the interent or other places or more laboratory research places, the mills are just as horrible, the shelters are just as full because nothing has been done about byb's, oops, and other litters and nothing has been done about people just wanting a puppy and then wanting to dump it when it's a dog.

when that happens, and i'm pretty sure it will, then what? will it be ok to ban other sales? ban ownership? ban other breeders? who's the next target?

There's too much money in mills for them to just go away. Profitable enterprises always find a way to adapt and continue to make more money. How about enforce the laws we have, make sure the living conditions are kept up, surprise visits and inspections, heavily fine stores and suppliers for not having transparent and accurate records of where the dogs come from etc. All of that would go much further in helping the welfare of animals, not some silly ban of a perfectly legal activity.

 

[CaliTerp07]

I don't think anyone is saying the ban is the end all be all solution...

I'm all for incorporating all those other things you mentioned. Make people keep records, inspect the facilities, fine stores--but those aren't end all be all solutions either. (On top of which paying people to inspect the facilities and do random checks of things is going to cost $$$--where is that coming from?)

I think this is a step in the right direction, that's all. I don't think that blocking one city's shops from selling animals is going to suddenly save dogs all over the world.

 

[Romy]

ok, for all you supporters of the ban, what happens in 2 years or 5 years when they realize the puppy mills are still in business, just selling on the interent or other places or more laboratory research places, the mills are just as horrible, the shelters are just as full because nothing has been done about byb's, oops, and other litters and nothing has been done about people just wanting a puppy and then wanting to dump it when it's a dog.

when that happens, and i'm pretty sure it will, then what? will it be ok to ban other sales? ban ownership? ban other breeders? who's the next target?

There's too much money in mills for them to just go away. Profitable enterprises always find a way to adapt and continue to make more money. How about enforce the laws we have, make sure the living conditions are kept up, surprise visits and inspections, heavily fine stores and suppliers for not having transparent and accurate records of where the dogs come from etc. All of that would go much further in helping the welfare of animals, not some silly ban of a perfectly legal activity.

:hail::hail::hail:

Banning anything doesn't help. Down by the border there are horrific puppymills in Mexico that smuggle dogs over here to sell in pet shops. They would sell them on the street if they had to. And people would buy them because they want dogs. Specific kinds of dogs.

All they NEED to do is ENFORCE THE FRICKIN' ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST.

How many times have I walked into a petsmart to see sick and dying reptiles with no food or water. Dead animals even! How many people here have seen sick and dying puppies in pet stores? Yet, nobody does a **** thing about it when it's reported. They don't get a fine or anything. Yet there are laws against it. How about enforcing an existing law for a change. Whoa, there's an idea.

 

[ACooper]

something being legal isnt a reason not to control it in certain areas. by that logic, we should wipe out a load of the laws that are already out there that most people have no issues with at all because of the good that follows. so that in itself isnt the best argument to use.

You aren't understanding the POINT. Controlling = Specifications or regulations. Banning = not being able to do it at all.

If they were proposing to make stores who sell dogs (pets in general) have a more strict policy----> example: conduct health screenings by a vet, provide information to potential buyers on where the dogs came from, a mandatory waiting period, an application for references, and a spay/neuter contract-----sort of like the process for adopting from a shelter, then that would be GREAT and I would be in line to vote for that in my OWN area.

I don't have an issue with putting safe guards and regulations in place WHEN NEEDED (and obviously, they are needed where this is concerned) like pharmacies have to follow, like liquor stores and bars must follow, like strip clubs, and a whole slue of other businesses have to follow.

But to tell shop owners that they CANNOT sell a completely LEGAL item is NOT ok IMO and WILL set a precedent that I am not comfortable with in any way.

 

[milos_mommy]

I am all for it.

Why? What about the poor puppies rights? They don't get to make laws for themselves, so someone has to do it for them. Puppy mills are already illegal and probably like 90% of puppies in pet stores come from puppy mills anyway. It will cut down on puppy mills. It will cut down on people breeding for profit. It will make it less easy for someone stupid to walk in and buy a puppy and then try to get a wart off it's chin with tweezers or a match because they thought it was a tick (happened at work yesterday), and will make people THINK before taking a life into their hands.

 

[PWCorgi]

Puppy mills are already illegal and probably like 90% of puppies in pet stores come from puppy mills anyway. It will cut down on puppy mills.

Doubt it. Not that hard to send a shipment of puppies to a different city/state.

 

[xpaeanx]

Actually, mills aren't illegal, most have USDA licenses. The conditions they keep their animals in are... but nobody does anything about it...

 

[Romy]

Actually, mills aren't illegal, most have USDA licenses. The conditions they keep their animals in are... but nobody does anything about it...

^^^This is what makes me so angry when people want to pass new laws about ANYTHING. 90% of the time the issue could be managed or resolved by enforcing existing laws.

Look at breed bans for example. Some parent leaves their toddler unsupervised in the yard with several large dogs and is surprised when the kid is killed. Reaction? Ban X breed or size of dogs! That'll keep it from happening again (NOT).

How about....maybe charging the parents with negligence? Child endangerment? Someone lets their dog with a bite history roam in an area with a leash law and it attacks joggers? Why not charge them with public endangerment if that specific animal was known to be aggressive?

In this case, minimum care requirements are not even being met in a lot of cases (in pet stores and mills) yet no authorities do ANYTHING to enforce it. WHY!?!

And why is it the government's job to make sure morons don't tweeze warts off of dogs!?!?! That makes no sense to me. There are laws against torturing animals. They don't need to regulate our access to dogs to keep dogs safe. I love my dogs, but their legal status needs to stay "my property". Otherwise who knows what kind of moronic government folks will decide they know better than me what MY dog needs.

 

[release the hounds]

I am all for it.

Why? What about the poor puppies rights? They don't get to make laws for themselves, so someone has to do it for them. Puppy mills are already illegal and probably like 90% of puppies in pet stores come from puppy mills anyway. It will cut down on puppy mills. It will cut down on people breeding for profit. It will make it less easy for someone stupid to walk in and buy a puppy and then try to get a wart off it's chin with tweezers or a match because they thought it was a tick (happened at work yesterday), and will make people THINK before taking a life into their hands.

how will this make people think? they can't just look in a news paper, check craigslist, go to google, type in puppy, get bombarded with nice websites hit a pay pal payment and get shipped a puppy? Sounds easier than taking a trip to an actual store where you can at least see the puppy. on the net they'll be able to just fluff you with nice pictures and keep the puppies in even worse conditions.

 

[Xandra]

Puppies don't have rights. No animals have rights. Animals are a type of property with certain restrictions put on their usage and upkeep.

Our city banned the sale of rabbits in pet stores because people were buying them and then letting them loose in the rural part of the city, where they would breed and destroy crops. I'm not happy about it, but to me that isn't really a threat because they didn't do it to "protect" the rabbits from people, but to protect the local farmers... and there really isn't any way to enforce not releasing rabbits unless you have cameras and cops all over the place. And I do think now that people have to go to a pet store in another city or to the SPCA or a newspaper ad that it will really lessen the problem. I guess it remains to be seen.

 

[smkie]

I have seen the middle stopping place for all those animals that end up at pet stores. This is why I have nothing in a cage, nothing in a tank. Even for the ferrets, the mice, all of the living it is a nightmare. WE did a death count every day. Snakes came in bags from foreign countries and you knew no one had fed them for a very long time. Many lizards were dead when the arrived and I have had nightmares about how birds came in. THe only reason I stayed as an employee was because I thought I was helping them. I spent my own money on crickets, stopped and picked clover blossoms and such for those that needed it, hand fed the ones that were ill hoping I could fix them. I dont' know if in the long run it was the right thing to do or not. My boss sent me to city market to raid the dumpsters for broken watermelons and such for the turtles. He wasn't even suppose to have a thousand box turtles and most of those died in the heat wave. That was when we all quit. I have written it on here multiple times, do not buy anything living from a pet store. Find a reputable breeder, I don't care if it is a rat (I have one I can recommend) or a bird.
I know nothing about politics or how they work. So I will refrain from giving any kind of opinion. Just wanted to express that it is hell for all of them, hamsters included.

 

[release the hounds]

I don't buy anything from a pet store that sells anything living (other than shelter cat adoptions). Not a dish, toys, leash, nothing

 

[milos_mommy]

A lot of people just walk into pet stores and decide then and there, walking past, that they're going to buy a puppy. If they have to look in the newspaper or online, at least they are actually wanting and looking for a puppy. They have to think about it before they call or go pick up the puppy.

I've been wondering for a long, long time why it's legal to sell puppies in pet stores.

 

[PixieSticksandTricks]

A lot of people just walk into pet stores and decide then and there, walking past, that they're going to buy a puppy. If they have to look in the newspaper or online, at least they are actually wanting and looking for a puppy. They have to think about it before they call or go pick up the puppy.

I've been wondering for a long, long time why it's legal to sell puppies in pet stores.

Someone's probably going to throw that Ben Franklin quote again (I don't really think it applies here), but if a law prevents the suffering of even a small number of animals, then I don't care if it somehow restricts my ability to own a pet. A pet is a privilege, not a right, in my opinion.

I agree 100% completely. Not that I want it to happen or that im a PETA drone. But I never have looked at pet ownership as a "right".

Plus, really? ALL animals? Those poor kids who will never have a hamster, gerbil, guinea pig.... or fish.

Uh yes they will. Their parents will just have to go to reputable breeders instead. Of course most people are too lazy to do that for a small pet.

And yes blah blah blah they could ban the breeders. But thats not what this particular law is about. Just because pet stores may be forced to stop selling animals does not mean the pet population is going down the drain. You are all just assuming that this will happen. It honestly sounds paranoid to me.

And yes I know about breed bans. Pit bulls are banned in my city and I have family effected by it.


Honestly what the heck do you people want?

The pet stores to stop buying from puppymills in mass numbers and selling sick puppies to the public? Right?

This is the only reasonable way I can see this actually happening. Of course its not the end all be all.

Doesent mean its going to effect ALL animal ownership everywhere if the stupid pet stores are banned from selling puppies or animals.

Lets just allow it to continue on and try and educate people not to buy these puppies by educating on forums. Thats REALLY gonna make a big difference.

 

[ravennr]

just to throw it in. almost every article i have read on this has pointed out that few pet stores in this city even sell dogs or cats.

if the law were focused on dogs and cats from places other than a rescue agency/shelter, i imagine there would be less of a problem.

just throwing it out there that this law does not seem to be attacking dog owners at all. as it stands, they arent even a common problem according to the city because they arent a common selling item.

 

[release the hounds]

there's so many contradictions in there I don't even know where to start

 

[ravennr]

there's so many contradictions in there I don't even know where to start

i am intentionally playing a very loose devils advocate (i never fully agreed, or disagreed, with the law at all; i specifically said i wasnt going to jump at the throat of it, actually).

that set aside, it still remains that this law is not attacking dog owners.

 

[release the hounds]

I guess I don't get it? If this law isn't going to affect anyone, certainly won't affect any mills, only a couple sellers, no owners and not many dogs it appears, then what is it's intention again? Why is it necessary? what is it good for?

somebody tell me what this ban is good for, tell me what it will accomplish?

 

[ravennr]

dogs are not the only animals in the world, actually. and quite a few of these stores are selling animals that were already banned from being sold in stores.