In the relentless quest to mould their city into the most hideously miserable jurisdiction on the planet, San Francisco's left-sprinting collection of former hippies - whose teen angst intellect has been ossified by years of THC abuse - last year came up with a cunning plan.Sell a guinea pig, go to jail.In the intervening period they've had a change of heart, though, but not in the way that the majority of us who don't live in some absurd communist hallucinatory dreamscape would expect.
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.
San Francisco's ever-active Animal Control and Welfare Commission has renewed its push for a pet sale ban in the city - only this time, it even covers goldfish.Not only that, its remit has been extended. After all, there is scope to imprison far more people than just pet shop owners, eh?
The proposed ban, which the commission just adopted after a year of study, was expanded to cover animal breeders as well as pet stores.Presumably, all motivated by the same kind of effete ideology held by vacant insipid undergrads who declare that "animals are, like, better than people ... man".
Rumours of an upcoming San Fran draft bill making the wearing of foam-platformed sandals compulsory to protect snails in wet weather have yet to be confirmed.
12 comments:
When did we lose the capability and gumption to tell these morons to "Just Fuck OFF!!"?
Frisco? Doesn't one of their minority groups rather enjoy the occasional guinea pig pie?
that was posted a year ago.. did it happen?
Callie: Not yet, the bill is still going through but this week they added fish to the prohibited animals. Check the links above.
What if your dog has puppies? Can't you sell them?
No Michael you can't sell them. You can't charge that small fee that covers the cost of the innoculations, and the vet fees you paid.
Result- far more puppies and kittens will go without checkups, and innoculations. And they won't be spayed either because that costs money too.
Animal suffering will be increased, not decreased, by this bone-headed measure.
They have been pushing this for a while now, maybe since the last year. The source is from the government animal welfare department. So think of it. If they can force pet stores to not sell pets and put them out of business, then all the business for pets would be only through the government operated animal shelters and some nonprofits, such as PETA. And if the government (and/or government co-funded charity) animal shelters have a total monopoly on all pet sales, then they will be able to charge whatever they like in way of fees and extra charges associated with pet adoptions, since there will be no free market stopping them and government legislation enabling them. But more importantly, this will increase the justification for need of increased budget to the animal welfare department, the hiring of more government employees, growth of bureaucracy and the retention of current employees at higher salaries and benefit levels - after all, they will have made themselves more indispensible, by simply shutting down every private owned pet store in the city. So from that insider perspective of "creating jobs" and "growing the economy" - but only for government workers - that is probably the "logic" they are using to promote and justify the ban on selling pets by pet stores (which will go out of business and become obsolete).
On 'liberal' American blogs I often see people who live in the National Socialist State of California congratulating themselves on having the most 'progressive' state government in the world.
I have said for years everyone in Californias is insane. If they will put up with this sort of idiocy it proves my point.
I love the story that came up last year about the scientists who claimed they had discovered alien life in the state. Amazingly it was not residing in the state capital, Sacramento.
Anon @ 16:14: Ah, but isn't one of PETA's aims to stop people having pets at all as it is demeaning to the animal? I do believe it is, you know. This legislation is right up their street, then.
A new black market in the offing.
"..PETA's aims to stop people having pets at all as it is demeaning to the animal?"
Maybe I'm missing something as this isn't an issue I've spent a lot of time on, but this reminds me of when I asked a preaching vegetarian "how many sheep and cattle do vegetarians keep alive compared to the rest of us?".
w/v = ozate
so close, so close to 'ate zoo'
In a way - PETA is to pet-keepers, what ASH is to smokers.
Each group would like to see the receiving ends of their actions essentially gotten rid of, by whatever means necessary, including inducing death directly, when they can get away with it.
So, exactly how does one acquire a 'companion animal'? And what if I want a sheepdog or some chickens?
I guess moving might be simpler (not that I live there, thankfully - being surrounded by Californians would be quite bad enough).
Post a Comment