San Francisco Considers Ban On All Pet Sales 733
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that the Humane Pet Acquisition Proposal is on its way to the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco. It would ban the sale of any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it. Representatives of the $45-billion to $50-billion-a-year pet industry call the San Francisco proposal 'by far the most radical ban we've seen' nationwide and argue that it would force small operators to close. Animal activists say it will save small but important lives, along with taxpayer money, and end needless suffering. 'From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them,' says Philip Gerrie, coauthor of the proposal. 'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'"
Save important pet lives...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, if prohibition and the war on drugs are any sign, this will create a high value pet black market, which makes for-profit breeding operations more, not less, likely to be abusive. Law of unintended consequeneces.
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thus begins the scream of millions of small animals being Fedex'd...
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point of this law has been entirely missed by the kneejerk croud here on Slashdot.
It's a law that wouldn't effect me because I live in the UK but I could quite appreciate perhaps not such a drastic measure but something along those lines here in the UK.
Pet breeders all too often treat animals as little more than stock that makes money, they keep them in shitty conditions that whilst may not make the animal look scruffy will cause it distress and can lead to behaviour problems. They don't care about that because once they've sold the animal they deem it not their problem any more. Further, there's no real checks on breeders here, they can sell to whoever they want, and that can mean selling to people who will let their 3 year old kid throw their hamster or whatever around like a toy, or accidently stand on it, somewhat brutally crushing it to death- these sorts of things happen all the time.
Meanwhile we have rehoming centres absolutely full to the brim of animals that have been abandoned, or previously mistreated, whose behaviour issues have been noted, or corrected. They're full of animals of all shapes and sizes just begging for a home, and these rehoming centres do home visits to check suitability of a household for a pet before they allow someone to adopt. Further, they even have clauses that allow them to reclaim pets that are found to be mistreated so that they can seize them from incompetent or outright malicious owners. They will also neuter pets such that they do not go on to add to the problem of growing numbers of strays.
Really, in the UK at minimum there needs to be stricter licensing on breeding. Such measures might not put an end to the problems entirely, and black markets might exist- just as they do for banned dangerous dog breeds, but it would at least stop parents going out and buying a hampster for little timmy just because timmy cried about wanting one and they didn't have the balls to tell him he's not responsible enough to look after him, a pet that might then die in any number of horrid ways in which kids manage to kill their pets through not knowing better.
It's about stopping the market of pets as "accessories" and improving welfare for many animals as a result. It's about maximising adoption of rescued animals by more responsible and trustworthy pet owners, rather than going to their local shop out of convenience and leaving the stray problem a problem because so many strays go unadopted.
Personally I've always had rescued dogs through my entire life, and wouldn't dream of getting one from a shop, ignoring the countless genetic defects, and behaviour issues that arise from inbreeding and mistreatment amongst such breeders, rescued dogs just come in shapes and sizes you'd never expect (I had a jack russel / doberman cross once- no I don't know which was the mother and which was the father), and for me, have always been full of character and extremely loyal.
The point is there's not even a need for a pet industry when it's proven itself often untrustworthy and sometimes contributory to the stray problem (which your tax dollars have to deal with) when excess / imperfect animals are chucked out on the streets. When there's already a problem of too many pets needing homes out there in the first place such that a lack of pet shops would decrease the stray problem (hence saving your tax dollars) then it's ludicrous to go on allowing such an irresponsible industry to at least carry on without regulation.
I suspect this will be an unpopular view with Slashdot's liberal idealists where any mention of government is seen as a bad thing but oh well, it's just my personal opinion, this is at least one area where some kind of regulation can actually improve things for tax payers, animal charities, and animals alike, at the cost only of the detriment to an industry that more often causes detriment to those 3 sections of society.
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Things you miss:
#1 - the San Francisco law as written would outlaw animal shelters (what you call "rehoming centres") from collecting an adoption fee to rehome animals. That would put all the shelters into a drastic kill-down mode, or else cause a need to raise taxes by crazy amounts in order to handle all the animals needing to be kept in the shelters.
#2 - Outlawing the selling of aquarium fish? Lizards? Please.
#3 - PETA needs to get over themselves and learn to breed humans with humans rather than abusing the animals "their way."
Re: (Score:3)
Well if point 1 is true, then I agree this particular law is a bad one. In reponse to point 2 yes, certainly there are some animals pet shops could reasonably stock, in fact, it's much better that pet shops breed things like marine fish rather than pillage them from corals but for animals which there is often an abundance of strays/rescues like dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, goats and chickens (in the UK!) that's the sort of thing that needn't be sold in shops. Point 3 is really irrelevant, I'm not really int
Re: (Score:3)
If they want to le
Re: (Score:2)
Really can't wait until people start traffic tabby cats across the Mexico boarder to fuel this new illegal market! Think of the headlines!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention, pet "contraband" will be sold in other store.
Dude, the leash and collar were for my wife I swear!
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, the leash and collar were for my wife I swear!
Well, this is San Francisco... :^D
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was too lazy to read TFA, but there is a big distinction between selling pets and adopting pets. In one you just pay a small amount for the paperwork, covering vaccines and the like.
Even if pet selling was illegal, adopting should still be an option. There are quite a few pet shops that only sell supplies and refuse to support the Puppy Mill market, instead these host regular foster home gatherings where you can adopt pets and give them a proper home.
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:4, Informative)
What lives will it save? Without the pet industry, these animals would never be born.
If you read the article before rushing to get first post you'll see the problem. Most shop-animals are bred in horrible conditions and spend the first part of their lives in cages in shop windows. Not nice.
This way you'll have to get them from friends/neighbors/shelters. Hopefully the lives it saves will be the ones which would be put down when nobody takes them at the shelter.
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ferrets make a particularly good example - As induced ovulators, the females will remain in estrus until they mate or die. For that reason, you almost never see non-fixed ferrets for sale. Though considering the city involved here, they probably already ban ferrets outright. Horrid, vicious things, with their cute burbling and playful nipping - Can't have that, why, someone might leave a newvborn alone with one after starving it for a month!
However, I found one particular quote from the article especially revealing about the mindset involved here...
Why not fish? Because, Mr. Gerrie, believe it or not, you don't need to regulate every last detail of the domain arguably under your control. Until something becomes a clear problem, just leave it the hell alone. "Not fish", because NO ONE ABUSES FISH. Because you don't see stray fish picking through garbage outside restaurants. Because you don't hear about feral fish attacks when a child wanders down the wrong alley. Because fish lead to as close to zero potential for abuse as you could hope from any possible pet-animal.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, ferrets are banned in the entire state of California. Doesn't stop a lot of people though.
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, Mr. Gerrie, believe it or not, you don't need to regulate every last detail of the domain arguably under your control.
Sure he does. It's a biological need to meddle in other people's lives that's just as great as that of the conservative who makes buggery illegal.
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, people very commonly abuse fish by keeping them in extremely bad conditions. The problem is that fish don't communicate pain in a way that is obvious to humans. I've heard people advise putting tropical fish in the freezer to euthanise them! Just because the fish can't scream doesn't mean it's not in pain. The simplest way to euthanize a fish is to quickly cut its head off, but the most humane method is probably an overdose of anesthetic.
Keeping a goldfish in a goldfish bowl is usually death by slow torture. That two inch long goldfish you're keeping in a one gallon bowl is a pond fish which as an adult reaches six times the length and two hundred times the body weight. People don't know this because they keep killing their pets of as tiny juveniles, by slow and painful means I might add. In the long term you probably need *at least* 30 gallons per fish if you intend to keep your goldfish in an aquarium.
Then there's the people who buy single fish of schooling species like neon tetras. You should research the fish you are buying, know the minimum school size, and aim *above* that. A species whose minimum school size is eight will be stressed if you only have four, and *much* healthier (and more interesting to watch) if you keep sixteen.
Fishkeeping is a thinking person's hobby. While it's not rocket science, it takes a fair amount of practical scientific knowledge. You have to research the fish you're buying. I've seen 2" "sharks" in pet stores that are fry of giant catfish species that grow to eight or even ten feet in length.
Re:Save important pet lives...? (Score:4, Informative)
That said, I know that this is aimed at the pet stores that are stocked with puppy mill puppies. While I like the idea of discouraging that practice, that will also discourage (or outlaw) legitimate breeders that use humane practices and breed responsibly.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you can prove that the dog is an illegal alien.
"No, it's not my dog, he just lives here."
Re: (Score:3)
The point of a Chihuahua is that is just the right size to boil in a pot and make a single family meal without having to take the time and effort to butcher it and preserve the left over meat. They are the original fast food. They are not meant to survive.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it fairly unlikely he'll breed them in the first place.
Good thing... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Animals are tasty
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Dammit, you're gonna eat that puppy or you're going to PMITA prison, boyo.
Dyalikedags? (Score:2)
Well that won't stop the pikeys offloading dags on to you will it baye!
Pet sales will just become black market and underhanded.
Kill the treehuggers!! (Score:2)
It's clear where the problem really lies -- in the idiots who insist that we should suddenly kowtow to the rights of dumb animals. If we weren't supposed to keep or eat tasty animals, they'd have a bad flavor and wouldn't be so cuddly.
Re: (Score:2)
They do have a bad flavor. That's why you have to cook them.
Clearly you've never had raw Salmon, delicious.
Really? (Score:3)
Totally unenforceable.
(And whats to stop people from buying their animals in another town/state, or online?)
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing this will accomplish is to force pet dealers to relocate outside the San Francisco city limits, to one of the adjoining cities in The Bay Area. This will inconvenience some number of business owners, and a larger number of pet "companions" (i.e. owners), lose some tax revenue for the city, relinquish any ability by the city to regulate the pet industry, and accomplish absolutely nothing. It'll be like all those "dry" counties that have thriving liquor dealerships just outside their borders.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess it would end up like hermit crabs. Illegal to buy one, but you get one for free if you buy a cage. If there is a market people and the product is cheap, people will make it work.
Personally, I quit reading after this:
Snake food was almost exempt from the proposal. After all, pythons have to eat, and they like their lunch alive. But at a heated meeting, Commissioner Pam Hemphill questioned how it could be humane to sell live animals to be fed to other live animals.
At that point I can't help but think you've crossed a line somewhere and gone into some kind of pseudo-religion where it isn't nature on the throne but human ego. Animals gotta eat and they don't know a damned thing about this humane thing you keep talking about.
Guess they will have to ban their transport too? (Score:3)
Perhaps they can zone them out next, just like minorities are zoned out of most of the good areas of San Fransisco.
So basically what we have is your typical people in power mindset, I was going to say liberal but conservatives in power do it to, they will all be for freedoms they want (in the case of this city same sex marriages) but damn if you dare buy Spot in a local store, why that is inhumane. I am surprised you can't buy dogs to eat in SF but you can buy live fish and poultry. What is that? Are laws based on ick factor?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In San Francisco, and other so called 'liberal' bastions, laws are not created to give people the freedoms to live the life that they choose, they are created to radically socially engineer a population according to specific mores that the 'elites' prefer. So if the elites are tree-hugging PETA members, then they want to fashion society in that image, regardless of the hypocracy and stupidity it causes. One could say that all social engineering is applying a first order linear model to a chaotic system and
Re:Guess they will have to ban their transport too (Score:4, Insightful)
In San Francisco, and other so called 'liberal' bastions, laws are not created to give people the freedoms to live the life that they choose, they are created to radically socially engineer a population according to specific mores that the 'elites' prefer. So if the elites are tree-hugging PETA members, then they want to fashion society in that image, regardless of the hypocracy and stupidity it causes. One could say that all social engineering is applying a first order linear model to a chaotic system and then crying about how the results don't work.
How this is different than theocracy, I don't know.
Liberal bastions, eh? And how is this any different from those 'conservative' bastions that try to - for example - outlaw abortion?
Re: (Score:3)
Idiot. Liberal or 'conservative' bastions are all pretty much the same thing. Don't get stuck on the descriptor.
That was my point.
The OP pointed out how horrible these liberal bastions are... But whether they call themselves liberal or conservative is irrelevant. There are an awful lot of people out there who think they know how to live your life better than you do, and they're more than happy to pass legislation to make you conform to their beliefs.
*Cough* Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
"Pretty much Everywhere, laws are not created to give people the freedoms to live the life that they choose, they are created to radically socially engineer a population according to specific mores that the 'elites' prefer"
There, fixed that for you.
Save the liberal rhetoric for the Rush Limbaugh call-ins.
Re: (Score:3)
Why stop there? Just ban pet ownership and take care of the whole problem.
Animal experiments (Score:2)
Would I be allowed to buy a rat, for example, if I promised to test drugs on it?
Re: (Score:2)
Just odd. (Score:5, Insightful)
A guppy has feelings but a fetus doesn't? And I am not for making abortion illegal but I am a fan of truth and logic. What about sea monkeys? Will people with fish now still have the option to buy live life food for them like brine shrimp?
Re: (Score:3)
Depending on how many weeks we are talking about a guppy might be farther developed. An adult cat surely has more feelings than a fetus.
Re:Just odd. (Score:4, Informative)
"Without the Death Penalty there can be no justice."
Without the death penalty, there can be no innocent person murdered by the State.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A fetus is a person and has a soul.
Animals have souls because I say they do. You can't refute this because I give you no facts to refute. My argument is just as valid as the one you made, so nana-nana-boo-boo.
An animal's life has no inherent value to it.
You say this because an animal slaughter house is effectively a death camp, but your love of steak makes you feel uncomfortable about this, therefore it must be OK to kill animals, ergo animals have no inherent value. I'm a meat eater and will be all my life, but I have no illusions about what that means. "No inherent value" my ass
Re: (Score:3)
To string six entire sentences together, be grammatically correct (or at least enough for understanding) and still be so completely incoherent is truly a feat. I also congratulate you on your use of hyphens.
More pointless law.. (Score:2)
It seems to be largely meaningless.
Is there anybody who is actually selling pets in San Francisco? Hell, I had a hard enough time finding a place to reliably buy the cat food I feed my cat. And while I'm sure there's a couple of backyard breeders of birds, reptiles, and maybe even small dogs that might be hurt by this, I can't think of anywhere in the city limits of San Francisco where a breeding operation is a "good idea."
Hey, San Francisco: does everybody in the city have food, housing, and most importa
Dear animal activists (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck off.
Sincerely,
Animal Lovers.
Seriously, I get really tired of these dumbshit activists that think that pets somehow have a horrible life and if all animals just roamed free they would be so much better off. I think the problem is they watch Disney movies and believe that is how the wild actually is: Animals living together in harmony and having the best of time. I think these people need to take a trip to Africa and see nature in all its brutal Darwinian glory. Nothing dies of old age there, they just get older and slower until something eats them.
Sorry, but I think my house cat has a much better life. He gets to lay around all day, safe from weather and predators, he eats when he wants, gets attention lavished on him, and has access to medical care to handle his problems (asthma in his case).
Pets bring a lot of joy to humans, and it isn't bad for the pets. They have their needs met in a way they'd never get in the wild.
Re:Dear animal activists (Score:5, Informative)
Thank PETA. If you've ever been stupid enough to support PETA you need to understand they want to ban pet ownership. Yes Ban it. It's one of their top priorities.
There are plenty of good organizations out there that try to stop animal abuse, but PETA gets all the attention and I'd be 90% of the people that support PETA fail to realize just how radical the beliefs of their founder. PETA believe pet ownership is slavery and they want it gone. Honestly if you want to stop animal abuse you are far better off sending your money to ASPCA or Humane Society.
Re: (Score:3)
PETA believe pet ownership is slavery
It is, just not for the pet, but the human. I am a slave to my cat's will.
PETA kills pets (Score:4, Informative)
Thank PETA. If you've ever been stupid enough to support PETA you need to understand they want to ban pet ownership. Yes Ban it. It's one of their top priorities.
PETA collects unwanted pets from owners and immediately kills them in the van they drove up in. This first came to light when someone found PETA illegally dumping lots of dead animals in someone's dumpster.
The Truth about PETA [thisistrue.com]
PETA Trial Day 5: Deception and Tears [petakillsanimals.com]
Shocking New Crime-Scene Photos [petakillsanimals.com]
PETA's Shame [nokillnow.com]
PETA Kills Pets | Seattle Dogspot [seattledogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dear Angry Idiot (Score:4, Informative)
Here's an idea. If you want to do that you could, you know, like, dude, ban factory farming of pets.
As a city legislature, you can only ban puppy mills within the city limits. That doesn't stop a pet store within your city limits from importing animals from out of state puppy mills (and in fact I'm reasonably certain there are no puppy mills within the 49 square miles of San Francisco, except perhaps pit bull breeding for illegal dog fighting). Most puppy mills are located in the Midwest -- Missouri, I'm looking at you. Similarly, a city can't pass laws regulating interstate commerce; in other words, there's nothing it can do to stop a pet store from buying from out of state puppy mills. The only thing the city can do that will prevent stores from buying from puppy mills is to ban pet stores, which is what the law proposes.
In my experience, few pet lovers in San Francisco buy purebred dogs as it is. There is a strong SPCA culture here, where I would say the majority of people adopt dogs and cats from shelters (or get kittens or puppies from friends).
If you really must have a specific breed, however, there's nothing stopping you from driving 20 minutes across the Bay Bridge to buy one. Hopefully, however, the law will make you think twice about whom you buy from, and that you'll be reminded to deal with breeders whose operations you've personally inspected and whose bona fides are sound.
unenforcable (Score:2)
Free Dog! (Score:2)
Any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or sli (Score:2)
So Coral and anemones are okay, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that already on the endangered species list?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That would be illegal as kittens without legs can fly. Only the landing is a bit difficult.
For a change (Score:2)
If it is made illegal... (Score:2)
Unless you plan to eat them... (Score:2)
... So now all the ads selling cocker spaniel puppies will read "delicious cocker spaniel puppies for sale."
I can see where they are seeking to rid themselves of "puppy mills" and the like, but how about pet retailers (wow, that just sounds creepy doesn't it? pet retailer? Is that were you go if you want to reverse the procedure for your doberman pinscher?)? Will Petsmart no longer sell pets? (They do sell pets right? I thought they did...) They show reptiles, birds, fish and rodents on their site.
Thi
Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Living things (Score:2)
" 'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'"
Plants are living things too. Should we ban the sale of them.
On other news, San Francisco pet owner ate his cat.
Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment (Score:2)
Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment Of Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2z2lTUR5Ao [youtube.com]
Whether this succeeds or not (Score:2)
Puppy Mills (Score:2)
It would be nice if we could eliminate puppy mills and get more people to adopt or buy from good reputable breeders that actually take care of their animals.
This isn't the way to do it, and people still ignore shelter pets which need homes so they can get a "purebred" dog which is safer than some shelter mutt.
So you can eat it but not feed it? (Score:2)
ahhh yeah that's so humane! LOL
Wait... (Score:2)
Now, are these people actually the "OMG Teh Petz is slavery!!!" morons, or are they holding the much less unreasonable position that:
a) "Farm" dogs/cats (bred for sale) tend to suffer from poor health and poor treatment in the pet stores and
b) Every pet bought at a pet store is a rescue that gets the needle?
If the former, then yes. Fuck the nutters sideways with a chainsaw. Three cats and formerly a dog (RIP, buddy), all rescues, and damn if I don't enjoy their company more than most people's...
In other news, SF outlaws heterosexual coupling... (Score:2)
In other news, SF outlaws heterosexual coupling... citing the fact that it can lead to pregnancy and childbirth. People as not responsible to care for children, and so hetero-sex must be stopped!
More PETA gubbish. (Score:3)
More PETA gubbish.
I really wish they would go away, and I'm a vegetarian myself.
Pet Stores to turn Grocer? (Score:2)
Time for a meme (Score:2)
Time for an outdated meme to become real:
http://www.ding.net/bonsaikitten/bkmethod.html [ding.net]
It doesn't walk, fly, swim, crawl or slither.
Fuck small operators. (Score:2)
not everything can be justified because people make money off of it. this is what has brought our civilization to this upside down state, on the brink of collapse.
Trivial workaround. (Score:2)
Ridiculous? (Score:2)
So, what's to stop one from just going to the next town over and buying a pet there? All I can see this doing is reducing tax revenue for the city by killing local sales and businesses, and inconveniencing pet-buyers.
So if you (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, I plan on eating my dog. Sell me a dog. What, are they going to make an additional law saying that you must eat your pets if you say you will? How about a law saying that pets must be stamped with a "best before" date? Or here's one, make it so you have to eat your pet in public or better yet, slaughter the animal when the credit card is swiped.
These legislators are stupid. Their state is completely broke, yet they have time to dream up bullshit like this. Congratulations on putting pet stores out of business (although surprisingly I'm sure that big-box pet food/supply retailers will be just fine) and causing people to travel out of state to buy their animals. Here's a tip. If puppy mills are a problem (and they can be), then GO AFTER THE DAMNED PUPPY MILLS.
I bought my dog at a pet store because no breeder currently had her breed. Yes, perhaps she came from a puppy mill. But she's the happiest dog in the world now (despite my sig) and I certainly wouldn't exchange her for any other dog now that we've gotten to know each other.
creates bad image (Score:2)
Whether you agree or not, I think such proposals will simply add more fuel to those that say all them SF people are nutjobs. This will impact future ideas/programs/conferences/whatever put forth by the city even if it is generally accepted and considered good ideas. There may be large groups or companies planning a SF conference (or perhaps hosting Olympic Games) but oh no, they may say, "uhmmm, them SF folks sure are nutzoid, maybe we should look into another city."
I think they need to look at proposals
Impressive... (Score:2)
The idea seems profoundly divor
I can guess where the impetous comes from (Score:2)
I have a friend or two who are vets and who blog. Judging from their blogs, breeders are the scum of the earth. They won't learn enough about the animals they breed to do the basic things necessary to keep them healthy. They won't pay the vet they call in when things go wrong. They refuse to let the vet treat the animals if it would cost them money or even just make their lives a little inconvenient.
Now, I'm guessing there are good breeder's out there. And I'm guessing those breeders have vet visits that ar
It's More Cruel to *Prevent* Pet Ownership (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a valid evolutionary step for many animals to prefer and enjoy the company of people; banning pet "ownership" merely leaves dozens of cat and dog sub-species without their proper habitat and social environment.
PETA: hated by 100% of house dogs (Score:5, Insightful)
I read this aloud to my wife, and our 10lb yorkie-poo dog just walked over to me and said "If those goddamn animal activist hippies think they're going to make me live outdoors, they're fucking crazy."
Then he took his surgically-fixed knee, went back to his comfortable place on his knitted afghan in our predator free air-conditioned home, stopping by for a bite of nutritionally-balanced dog food and a sip of parasite-free drinking water, and proceeded to fall back asleep for his 20-hours-out-of-every-24 rest pattern.
Re:PETA: hated by 100% of house dogs (Score:4, Funny)
Not that I support this proposal, but your Yorkie-poo is not an outdoor creature. The outdoor creature from which he is derived is probably a wolf. I am forever astonished at what, over time, has been made from wolves, perhaps with a ton of merciless "culling" of puppies.
Now, suppose that some alien culture abducted a bunch of human beings, and bred them down to the point that their decendants were hairy retarded love slaves as your dog is. How would you feel about that? If the wolf were more intelligent, maybe he'd feel that way about your dog.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you see the recent National Geographic story about the fox domestication experiment that's been running in Russia for the last 50 years? Here's that article and another about the program:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/taming-wild-animals/ratliff-text/1 [nationalgeographic.com]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts [freerepublic.com]
In short, with a program that only looks for "tameness" (i.e. does a given animal accept or reject food and petting from a human, measured twice in their life with minimal other human contact),
Western mindset? (Score:4, Insightful)
From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them,' says Philip Gerrie, coauthor of the proposal.
Hey, uh, Mr. Gerrie... that is the western mindset, yes, but, uh... look where you are buddy.
Multiple choice: In terms of which hemisphere it is, what the mindset is there, where it is in the US, and which coast it is on, where is San Francisco?
A. North B. South C.East D. West
Is this guy so loony that to him "Western mindset" is an indictment of some thought in and of itself? "Oh that's how we think in the UNITED STATES, so obviously that's the dumbest possible mindset." Is that what's going on here? "If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently." Yeah, but we don't, so why are you acting like we do or should?
Regulation? (Score:3)
Why not just regulate the hell out of selling pets?
Spend some money in research, and find out how and what you should regulate? Maybe instead of keeping newly born cats / dogs in a 2'x2'x2' cage, you are required to have 25sqft per kitten, 50sqft per puppy, etc. Shared environments are ideal, as it helps foster an environment where the animal is in a group setting (try adopting a 3yr old cat that has never seen another cat or animal its entire life).
Toss in some regulations about food, water, etc.
Basically take the incentive away from the the "pet factories" but still allow the caring breeders to continue doing what they love.
(there IS a market for spending $2k on a puppy with good heritage, etc)
Re:Of course we consider them living beings! (Score:5, Funny)
"and spoiler her mercilessly"
She probably didn't appreciate when you told her that Darth Vader was Luke';s father, before "The Empire...:" came out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The last thing we need to do is give them the ability to travel faster inside the house. When my cat comes in the front door at 60kph she deserves to slide across the tiles and down the two steps to the dining area, dammit!
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. They want people to own/spoil them, they don't want them bred in factory conditions and kept in cages with no love when they're tiny and most need it.
When shops are banned you'll have to get them from friends/neighbors/shelters.
Re: (Score:2)
I am all against "Puppy Mills" and Mall Pet Shops. But what about reputable breeders? My family bought our dog from a breeder because we wanted one that came from healthy parents and wasn't inbreed where negative traits didn't come across. As well we needed a dog with a size and temperament that fits our family. San Francisco seems to have a major problem of not thinking before making laws.
Re:Of course we consider them living beings! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that dog "breeds" are so inbred that they often have serious medical conditions. Besides things like epilepsy and hip dysplasia, there are pugs and other short snout breeds often have breathing problems. Bull dogs are often delivered via cesarean because their heads are too big. Shar peis often have skin problems. Great Danes and other large breads die young because of heart problems. Most herding breeds develop neurological problems when not allowed to follow the instincts for which they have been bred.
Mutts are often much healthier and smarter than pure breads.
Re: (Score:3)
Amen. If you're going to ban something, ban the breed organisations like the AKC who push breeders to choose dogs for appearance instead of health or function.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same with cats, they came to us for the free ride. We like their company so we let them in. So it turned commercial, but really, what *hasn't* turned commercial.
As for any cruelty, there are some people that will always be cruel to animals/humans, this won't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sub-intelligent species are not pets anyway, they are decorations. Which is why I hate to see snakes fed mice and rats. Those are far smarter and make for actual pets, unlike a snake.
Re: (Score:3)