Bid to Criminalize Pets Fails in San Francisco

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Bid to Criminalize Pets Fails in San Francisco

Written By : Dave Blount

Even in San Francisco, liberty and sanity sometimes win out over liberalism. A proposal to make it illegal to sell any pets other than fish has been tabled due to public outrage. But in light of the rust-like tenacity of liberalism, it wouldn’t be surprising if Commissioner Phillip Gerrie and other moonbats try again in the future.

Gerrie expressed concerns about how many “smalls,” little pets like hamsters and gerbils, are euthanized each year because pet owners don’t realize that the cute little critters can be a noisy, destructive handful. Gerrie seemed to be coming very close to what some critics have charged – that the real goal is to discourage locals from owning pets.

“When,” he asked, “do we stop the exploiting, the buying and selling of animals?”

There you have it: a liberal admits to the objective of bringing the human race back to a point prior to the domestication of animals. As for the put-upon gerbils: what effect will banning pet stores have on the gerbil population?

But most of the early speakers were more focused on caged tropical birds. Mira Tweti, the believe-it-or-not-named author of “Of Parrots and People,” had a PowerPoint presentation about captive parrots and the tribulations they must endure. And a representative from In Defense of Animals called for a ban on breeding, selling and keeping birds – unless the person is rescuing the bird from an abusive home.

And while it was admittedly wrenching testimony, the average pet owner probably wanted to know if he or she would be able to buy a puppy at a local pet store. As commission Chairwoman Stephanie Stephens said, no one wants to see an animal mistreated, but what about the responsible pet owner who keeps an animal in good condition and forms a mutual bond of trust and affection?

Nope, testified the bird advocate, they shouldn’t have a pet either.

In a town where it is often said that dogs outnumber children, that’s going to be a tough sell.

That probably explains why this latest moonbat power grab failed for the time being; in Liberal Land, the affection that would have gone toward aborted babies is redirected to yapping lapdogs with ribbons on their heads.

What SF libs have instead of children.

On tips from Anonymous Countermoonbat and Vanessa. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Lee

Attempts at control run amok.
Christopher_Taylor

That they'd even consider this idiotic proposal tells you how radical and foolish these people have become
http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

SF never lacks for extremist points of view – look at the entity which posts here under a half-dozen screen names. He's from the SF area and he's pretty rabid too.

I wonder if these brilliant commissioners took much more than a few seconds to consider that people would just drive the little bit out of town needed to buy their pets in towns where the sale was legal. Meaning of course that the SF business men and women in the pet trade would be seriously disadvantaged economically and adding to the financial woes of the city by decreasing sales tax revenues.

And VH's point about the plentitude and importance of pets, especially small prissy dogs, to the average SF resident is not to be overlooked.

Gimme an “S”

Gimme an “F”

What's that spell?

Nanny state.
TakeBackOurCountry

The SF commissars and their moonbat mayor newson put the LUNATIC in lunatic-left.
Remember, SF is a large part of botox pelosi's district.
Toastrider

Even a small dog can be a good thing. I'm not much for pomeranians and chihuahuas, but Cavalier King Charles spaniels will greet you like you're an old buddy coming back after a long trip. Every time.

But yeah, it doesn't surprise me that moonbats would seek to deprive people of man's best friend and oldest ally.
UFKA_Smithwick

Well why not regulate and tax them?

I'm for sensible pet control measures. You pay a hefty fine each time you purchase a pet to cover the costs of sending state authorities in to your home at random intervals to ensure that the animal is properly cared for and secured.

You must first of course pass an extensive background check (at your expense of course) and take a class in pet ownership (it expires every 4 years and costs 300 dollars per class, all run by the state) and of course there is a yearly license renewal fee.

Dogs and cats must be muzzled at all time to prevent accidental mauling of children or burglars and cats must be declawed. You may remove the muzzle in state-run “pet friendly zones” where they are permitted to run and bark and such for a nominal fee.

Military style animals are banned outright: no german shephards, rottweilers, etc. Really any animal ever used by a military anywhere will be deemed an assault animal and banned (really, how small must your penis be to feel you need one of these killing machines?).

Really these are just common sense procedures. Anyone who opposes them is obviously some kind of pet-nut who hates children.

With these in place our epidemic of pet attacks and our culture of extreme pet ownership will be finally brought under control.

I hear europe already does all these things.
Toastrider

I see what you did there. :D