Ban On Pet Sales

Summary of the article

The article "San Francisco Considers Banning of Pets Except Fish" by Carolyn Jones is about the proposal of San Francisco's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare to ban the sale of companion animals at pet stores in San Francisco, including dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, birds, snakes, lizards and critters, except fish.

Commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens says that many people are buying these small animals on impulse, and many of them end up at shelters and are being euthanized. That's what they want to prevent.

According to staff of shelters and rescue groups, the main issue is not cats and dogs. It is hamsters. Hamster is the No. 1 animal being euthanized at shelters. Many people buy hamsters on impulse because they are cute and cuddly, not knowing hamsters are prone to biting, gnawing and racing on their exercised wheel at 2 a.m. in the morning. Shelter staffs are concerned many hamsters are being euthanized especially babies.

Many pet store owners argue that the proposal to ban pet stores from selling pets is ridiculous, and it will hurt their businesses. 

The commission will listen to testimony from pet store owners and others before voting. Commissioner Philip Gerrie said they're still in the information-gathering phrase. The final decision will be on the Broad of Supervisor.

Summary of the First Response

Ken White, President of Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA, posted a response, titled “The no pets in Pet Store Proposal”, to the article saying that there is nothing silly or ridiculous about the proposal when it concerns the suffering and death of animals. It is worth a discussion.

He stated that even though the article says that cats and dogs are not the issue, in fact it is. He said that on average San Francisco is adopting about 45-50% of sheltered dog and cats. The rest will be euthanized.

He also stated that some animals are being neglected while they are in the pet stores. Usually these animals are not being sold for a profit, especially for the big stores. These animals are giveaways, and the store owner will profit from the sales of tanks, cages, foods, books, etc. He believed it is good for the animals to ban sell of these animals in pet stores.

Summary of the second response

"Banning Pet Stores in SF: A Solution in Search of a Problem" by Michael Yaki, Attorney and Political Consultant, is a response to the proposal of banning animal sale in San Francisco. He believes the proposal is ridiculous and is not well thought out. He said, "The impulse to care for another creature is not going to be bound by whether you can buy it in the city of Richmond or the Richmond District." He also claimed that the proposal is a hypocrisy. If a commission concerned with the welfare of animal, then why exclude fish and feeder animals like baby mice and crickets.

My Response

I find the proposal to ban the commercial selling of animal in San Francisco is ill-thought-out. I share the same opinion with Mr. Yaki on that buying an animal on impulse is not bound by where someone can get it. If the intent of the proposal is to prevent people from buying on impulse, I don’t believe banning animal sale in pet stores would prevent that. Nowadays, many people are buying on Craigslist.  Does it mean that these people are not buying on impulse? No. Is there a guarantee that these people won’t end up sending their pets from Craigslist to one of the shelters? No, I don’t think so. According to the article, the major reason many animals end up in shelters is that people don’t know what they’ve signed up for when they buy a pet. If that is the reason, wouldn’t requiring the pet store owner and staff to explicitly explain and educate customers on the animal behavior and required care be more effective?