______________________________________________

______________________________________________


"We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box." - Congressman Larry McDonald M.D.
(1 April, 1935 - 1 Sept., 1983)


_________________________


God Save The Republic







08 July 2010

Intended Or Unintended Consiquences

According to an article in SFGate.com, the San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare is considering an ordinance that will ban the sale of all pets, except fish. The ordinance would include dog, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, birds, snakes, lizards and nearly every other critter the commission refers to as "companion animals."

According to commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens, "people buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, not knowing what they are getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and are often euthanized. That's what we'd like to stop."

Well, that's just freaking brilliant, Sally. Let's pick this gem apart some and see where it takes us.

You make it illegal to sell all pets other than fish. It would seem to me that the meat and potatoes portion of the pet shop business is going to be put out of business. Far be it from me to conclude this assumption on my own but, this might also tend to put some otherwise working people out of work? Didn't Vice Reich's Chancellor Joe Bite-me recently state, (the obvious) "the U.S. has lost more than 9 million jobs that we will never see return"? I guess that will be 9 million and two when pet shop entrepreneurs and pet shop workers bite the bullet.

But wait, there's more!!! San Francisco residents who want a pet would have to go to another city, adopt from a shelter or rescue group or find one through the classifieds. DAMN... I shoulda had a V-8!!! It all makes perfect sense to me now. On second thought, maybe it doesn't. (I knew I picked the wrong week to give up huffing Elmer's Glue Stix) Unless, of course, Sally's husband owns an exotic fish store. Or they don't want companion animals to have a home-field advantage?

Let me try this again. You make it illegal to sell pets in your city but, your residents can still buy them elsewhere and bring them home IN THE CITY? And this will dramatically reduce the numbers of animals these same residents will dump at the local shelter to face possible euthanasia HOW?

Hey Sally, me thinks if anyone should back away from the Elmer's... it's you. Because at the end of the day, whether by design or not, this stroke of shear stupidity will only cause harm to humans. And when political "luminaries" put more value in animal lives than in human lives, it's time we start dumping them at shelters to suck gas.

MikeH.

3 comments:

  1. When this was first announced, after I picked myself up off the floor from my laughing fit, my first though was, "Why do they hate fish?" Don't fish get flushed, and abused and abandoned? Or do only furry animals, birds and reptiles count?

    My guess is some big political contributor owns a bunch of fish stores.

    SF is full of idiots of the First Order.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A while ago, John, over at Improved Clinch, had some links to national groups that want to eliminate all pet ownership. Some even want to come to your house to liberate your pets.

    If you ever want to push people enough to start a real shooting civil war, this will do it. I guarantee shooting starts when loonies start showing up to take people's pets. I guarantee you the only armor made that will withstand what I'll hit you with comes on an M1 Abrams.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why not give the person buying a pet a reciept for a "core charge" much like you get when you buy a battery. That is you pay at the time you buy your pet the cost of recycling it. The pet store must take it back if you don't want it anymore and the extra fees already paid will defray the costs. Not perfect but certainly a possibility...

    ReplyDelete