July 08, 2010
"a good first step"
One of my pet peeves has long been the movement to abolish pets, and ultimately, all ownership of animals.
I have blogged about this so many times that I probably sound like a broken record, but today I learned that San Francisco is seriously considering banning the sale of all pets -- except fish:
Sell a guinea pig, go to jail.Naturally, banning pet sales will force local pet stores to either close or move. But this idea is part of a fanatical abolitionist movement, and it will spread.
Not that the activists would care, but the pet stores maintain that the small animals (mostly rodents) which show up at the San Francisco Animal Shelter aren't coming from them:
On Wednesday, the shelter, which is on 15th Street in the Mission District, had six hamsters, nine rabbits, nine mice, nine rats, two guinea pigs, a bowl of goldfish, two birds, a leopard gecko, a bearded dragon and a hermit crab named Charlie.Banning the ownership of pets absolutely is the goal, and I have discussed it in a number of posts. But they won't stop with pets; they also want to ban all ownership of animals by humans. No more farm animals, no more meat.
It would be a mistake to dismiss this a wacko, fringey, San Francisco idea. The Humane Society of the United States makes no bones about its desire to abolish the sales of animals in pet stores
The HSUS opposes the sale of dogs, cats, and other animals through pet stores and other commercial operations.Activists relentlessly campaign against all pet stores that sell pets, and the harassment is reaching to the point where few people would have the balls to open a pet store. (Precisely what the activists want.) If you open a business like that in a fixed location, you're a sitting duck. What that means that animal sellers will be gradually be forced underground. (Also what the activists want; that way they can clamor for "tougher laws.")
The best way to stop this sort of nonsense would be for people to stop donating money to the so-called "charities" like PETA and the HSUS. And they might also ask why cash-strapped cities have these busybody so-called "Animal Welfare commissions" in the first place. From my experience in Berkeley, I know that the only people who are ever get appointed to sit on them are animal rights activists. So what it means is that if you live in a city which has a commission like that, your tax dollars are going to activists who dedicate themselves to telling people what to do.
And if they take down the pet stores, the next target will be the pets themselves. Calls for bans on so-called "exotic animals" (which would include small reptiles) are being issued in mainstream publications like the Readers Digest.
"Wild and potentially dangerous animals should not be kept as pets where they can do grave harm to innocent victims," says Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal, who has been fighting to ban all Exotic Pets in his State. "If they are wild, they belong in Nature, not in people's homes, where their natural instincts and great strength can be extraordinarily hazardous."The piece concludes with an admonition,
Don't buy animals meant to live in the wildAnd this:
* Check with the Humane Society (humanesociety.org) to see if your State restricts ownership of Exotic Pets. Urge your legislators to follow the 29 States that have taken action.Of course, the HSUS is also against the ownership of domestic animals, which its president maintains should never have been bred. "Exotic" animals (defined as "animals meant to live in the wild") will become a catchall for the rest. (Simple arithmetic, because animals by definition are either wild or domestic, and they want to eliminate the keeping of them, period.)
These people don't intend to stop in San Francisco.
posted by Eric on 07.08.10 at 01:23 PM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood