Fur flies over proposed ban on the sale of most pets in San Francisco

Animal lovers all over the country are watching San Francisco to see what action, if any, city officials will take on a proposal to ban the sales of most pets. The idea started out simply enough when Philip Gerrie of the city's Animal Control & Welfare Commission suggested San Francisco join West Hollywood and South Lake Tahoe in prohibiting most puppy and kitten sales in pet stores. Only one store in the city sells puppies on a regular basis, but according to Gerrie, "large pet stores were considering moving into the city that do sell puppies."

Gerrie's plan took on a life of its own when others suggested the ban be expanded to include other animals he hadn't initially considered, like birds and so-called "pocket pets" like hamsters and rats. (Rabbit sales are already verboten. Reptiles, amphibians and fish probably wouldn't be covered by the ban.) According to Rebecca Katz, head of the city's animal control department, hamsters are euthanized at a higher rate than any other type of animal the department takes in. Birds were added to the list because of "their sensitivity and inappropriateness as pets; they are wild animals," Gerrie said.

So far, public opinion seems to be divided on the proposal, which hasn't yet been formally written and won't be voted on by the Animal Control & Welfare Commission next month. (If it gets the commission's stamp of approval, it'll move on to San Francisco's Board of Supervisors.) Some rescuers love the idea, which, after all, is aimed at keeping pets out of animal shelters. A group of pet-store owners, naturally, staunchly opposes it.

Even Humane Society of the United States leader Wayne Pacelle hasn't leapt on board. "I think the best thing would be to start with [banning] the sale of dogs and cats from these pet stores," he said. "I think [with a ban affecting more species] you attract a set of additional opponents that sink an otherwise achievable goal."

Learn more about the proposal in reporter Maria La Ganga's recent story in The Times.

-- Lindsay Barnett

Photo: A bird at a pet store in San Francisco. Credit: Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Meaghan Edwards]

For those stores that still want animals in their store, there is the option of referring people to rescues and RESPONSIBLE breeders. I do hope rodents and the like aren't exempted; millers don't just breed dogs and cats, but countless other animals and the pet store industry does feed their greed. We also need to get rid of online kennels where pups and the like are bought as easily as a book from eBay (many even have a "shopping cart" disgustingly enough).

[William McMullin]

I fully support a ban on pet sales in San Francisco. In pet stores, live, breathing animals are peddled as nothing more than commodities. Pet stores in general have proven to have poor care at their stores for the animals. Plus, for every animal bought at a pet store, one in a shelter dies.

With birds, there is also an environmental element. Birds are captured from the wild in rainforests around the world. Half do not survive the conditions during transport. The loss of birds distrupts the ecosystem.

This ban will also mean SF would no longer be supporting the cruel puppy mill industry anymore.

Lastly, most people do not know how to properly care for most small animals. To make matters worse, many parents buy small animals for their children who certainly should not be in charge of taking care of a life. People should not be able to buy an animal on a whim. They should adopt one from a shelter after careful consideration and advice from a shelter professional.

[flicka47]

Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Shouldn't this proposed "ban" apply to rescues and shelters as well? After all there are as many (or more,since they are less regulated)"bad" shelters as "bad" pet stores.

The shelters just want to have a government monopoly on selling animals. Weed out the competition as it were...