Reefmonster Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 San Francisco is planning to ban pet sales, except fish! This is the first step to outlawing reefkeeping in general. There is a town meeting tonight. All who care about pets in San Francisco should attend and voice their opinion! READ ABOUT IT HERE! This is serious. Fight for your right to keep companion animals, small pets will go first, then they will take reefs away from us, just like they did in Hawaii! Matt Link to comment
fiction101 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Ah you have to have love SF. They sure have their priority's straight. Link to comment
Jake Adams Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 there is no way this kind of law would pass. People who keep no pets are far outnumbered by people who keep at least one dog, cat, bird, fish or several of the above. However, banning the sale of pets within city limits is not the same thing as banning pets altogether. Anyone know the reasoning for it? Link to comment
Reefmonster Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 there is no way this kind of law would pass. People who keep no pets are far outnumbered by people who keep at least one dog, cat, bird, fish or several of the above. However, banning the sale of pets within city limits is not the same thing as banning pets altogether. Anyone know the reasoning for it? It's not a law. It's a city ordinance which does not require a vote. This is what happened in Hilo, HI about keeping reef creatures, (SPS, and LPS), and the Game and Wildlife department adopted this statewide. Their own residents can't even keep SPS or LPS in their own aquariums. Believe me, this is a first step to outlawing reef aquariums... The reasoning is the number of pets euthanized annually in the city's shelters. Stopping the sale of pets will not stop the euthansia of pets as they are likley unrelated. Link to comment
Rocket Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 BUT THE SALES TAX??? Is not California broke? Really now, government attempting to control more of your life since you are too ignorant to read up on the animals you want to keep. So they tell you no! SF bring on The Change! I agree with the article about most pets being an impulse buy, but this measure is extreme. Possibly implement a waiting system like guns, or an education class or even a small brochure with the animal at purchase, which could be declined, would be a reasonable first step. Even then I am against it. Link to comment
scarfish Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 jesus WTF is wrong with SF? lets ban plastic bags, dogs and cats, but lets harbor law breakers and boycott states that enforce immigration laws, everytime i hear anything about SF, i just say WOW hopefully an earthquake just rocks that city to it's senses Link to comment
supernip Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 jesus WTF is wrong with SF? lets ban plastic bags, dogs and cats, but lets harbor law breakers and boycott states that enforce immigration laws, everytime i hear anything about SF, i just say WOW hopefully an earthquake just rocks that city to it's senses dumb citizens force dumb laws? I dont think this will fly anyways. A lot of cities propose dumb laws all the time Link to comment
Deleted User 6 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 people actually care about what goes on in SF? Link to comment
Reefmonster Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 The funny thing about this is they aren't even giving voters a shot at it! They decided to make it a city ordinance, which onlt requires that it be presented before the city counsil, and then determined by the local judge...sad really...undermining the US Constitution...doesn't surprise me though, IT is the MOST Liberal city in America, possibly the world! Link to comment
meganistkrieg Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 There is a vast difference between "banning pets" and banning the SALE of pets. If anything, one would hope that this would lead to an increase in adoption and a decrease in puppy mills/breeding/the crummy pet stores that sell them. Maybe just wishful thinking on my part, but they're not saying they're going to take your cat away. Link to comment
Dani3d Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 I don't beleive one bit of this. The economical implication would be too high. Too much business based on this that would suffer. This is why they don't ban the sale of cigarette wich kill millions each year..money money money. San Francisco is planning to ban pet sales, except fish! This is the first step to outlawing reefkeeping in general. There is a town meeting tonight. All who care about pets in San Francisco should attend and voice their opinion! READ ABOUT IT HERE! This is serious. Fight for your right to keep companion animals, small pets will go first, then they will take reefs away from us, just like they did in Hawaii! Matt Link to comment
Dani3d Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 But this is riduculous at best! If I was living in SF and I wanted to buy a pet and there was no way to buy it localy in SF, I would simply go to Gillroy or Oakland or any other city around and buy one there and then bring it back to SF. Are these people total morons? Geezzz what a bounch of "bird brain". And who would compensate the business owners who would have to close their stores? and the people who work there would lose their job. Moronic. It's not a law. It's a city ordinance which does not require a vote. This is what happened in Hilo, HI about keeping reef creatures, (SPS, and LPS), and the Game and Wildlife department adopted this statewide. Their own residents can't even keep SPS or LPS in their own aquariums. Believe me, this is a first step to outlawing reef aquariums... The reasoning is the number of pets euthanized annually in the city's shelters. Stopping the sale of pets will not stop the euthansia of pets as they are likley unrelated. Link to comment
Markushka Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 lol, really all I can say. i feel bad for all of friscos reefers and pet owners in general. Link to comment
NyReefer Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Hopefully the judge has a pet at home. Link to comment
Mustang Boy Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 i do not believe in banning the sales of pets but i do believe in making people get special licenses to keep pets almost like getting a concealed weapons permit for a gun. i believe they should setup specialized classes for different forms of pets and they should make people take them(at a nominal fee of course) because anybody who is serious about taking care of pets wont mind spending $30-40 for a class and maybe another $100 for a permit that will last 5yrs and maybe different fees for specialized, exotic, or dangerous(poisonous snakes etc.) pets. this would both weed out the people who only want pets to have them and not take care of them and it would bring some income to the state/city/county Link to comment
Bill_68 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Banning reef keeping of exotics almost seems justified in Hawaii. Look at that exotic algae problem that California has. As for the "too many critters at the shelter" issue... I propose that each shelter have a large python. If the python can't eat it, it stays... "Run Toto, Run!" Link to comment
thewire Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 So they are banning all the sales of animal because overcrowding shelters and irresponsible pet owners....maybe they should also ban illegal immigrants that crossing the borders too..and irresponsible business owners that hired them...they are overcrowding the hospital and welfare service with their anchor babies Link to comment
grizzlyjack Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 As a San Francisco Resident, this kind of stuff disheartens me. While I am sure that people have the best intentions with this; it would not solve the problem they are trying to fix. The simple matter is if a person can't buy the pet here, they will simply go to another city to buy them. If doesn't work out, the pet will end up in the shelter here anyway. The only thing that this will achieve driving yet another business out of SF. That means at least 1 or more jobs lost, less tax revenue for a city/state going broke, and another reason to move out of all ready expensive city/state. Link to comment
Guest shanda45 Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 I can't even believe that this is up for discussion. This is unfair and ridiculous. Link to comment
reefer916 Posted November 7, 2010 Share Posted November 7, 2010 Wow, heard they just banned happy meals too. No pets, no guns, no happy meals. Next thing you know there will be no alcohol and they'll ban heterosexual marriages. Can't smoke cigarettes in your own home, but you could smoke weed. I don't get it. Link to comment
Genj Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Perhaps they should ban earthquakes before the city slides into the ocean...lost forever. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.