Every Pet Deserves A Good Home…

San Francisco City Gov Bans Pet Fish? Hello?

First the bay city decided we American’s just shouldn’t be able to decide matters such as circumcision.

A Ryukin goldfish from The 6th "Pramong N...

We shouldn’t have to worry about decisions like that since we have a brilliant and all knowing government to think for us.

Now San Francisco is taking things a step further by possibly relieving the American’s that live within its limits of the terrible right to purchase a pet goldfish.

San Francisco’s Animal Control and Welfare Commission is recommending that the City ban the sale of goldfish, tropical fish and guppies in its borders, according to Matier and Ross.

The recommendation to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is part of the commission’s ongoing efforts to discourage “impulse buys” of animals.

The commission’s ban would cover pet stores and breeders in the City. It comes after more than a year of study and findings that aquarium fish are often mass bred under inhumane conditions or stripped from the wild.

It almost seems as if these idiots read Atlas Shrugs and instead of learning lessons from it, they got ideas.

I mean, San Francisco has managed to chase off most parents with children, cutting off future generations of workers, business and tax dollars. They kicked a medical industry to the curb and now Pet Smart and many other pet stores are likely to notice little value of sticking around.

Good going liberals… way to succeed as a city.

Eric Odom

Source: Eric Dom


STOP Los Angeles and Other Major Cities from Unreasonable Pet Limit Laws and Restrictions

Southfield Implements Limit on Cats – Over Reaction!

Pet-Limit Laws Unconstitutional

Massachusetts Town Puts Limits on Cat Ownership

Adopt Just One More…MV Temporarily Reduced Adoption Fees

And here we thought Chicago’s attempt to pass a five-dog limit was controversial!

Homeless With Pets… Choosing Pets Over Shelter

Is Your Pet a Voiceless Victim of the Tanking Economy?

Chinese City’s “One Dog” Policy Has Residents Howling

Florida’s Idea of Cat Population Control

Humane Society list of pet financial aid-related organizations

Where there is a will…

I care not for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." -Abraham Lincoln

June 17, 2011 Posted by | Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Change Number of Pet Restrictive Laws. Ordinances and Rules, Just One More Pet, Pet Owner's Rights, Pets, Political Change | , , , , , | 3 Comments

Abducted cat’s trek from S.F. to N.Y. a Mystery

Mike Kepka / The Chronicle  –  Jennifer Lu holds Jack Daniels at San Francisco’s Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.


Jennifer Lu holds Jack Daniels at San Francisco's Society...Suzanne Hollis, a client care manager at Maddie's Pet Ado... View Larger Images

(08-10) 18:04 PDT San Francisco — If Jack Daniels could talk, he could probably explain everything.

But alas, Jack can only meow. So it remains a mystery as to how the nearly blind black cat, abducted from the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals a year ago, ended up on the streets of Harlem last week.

Tuesday morning, Jack Daniels’ journeys brought him back to San Francisco, courtesy of JetBlue and a cat-loving book designer from Brooklyn named LeeAnn Falciani.

“He’s this superstar cat,” said Falciani, who took a week off work to escort Jack Daniels from New York’s animal shelter to San Francisco’s SPCA. “He’s wonderful. I’m actually kind of sad right now to say goodbye.”

Jack Daniels’ saga began in May 2009, when San Francisco animal control officers brought him and his brother, Jim Beam, to the SPCA for adoption. Jack Daniels was suffering from scarred corneas because of a viral infection, a common condition among kittens, SPCA veterinarian and interim co-president Jennifer Scarlett said.

With his milky gray eyes, Jack Daniels relied heavily on his brother, who acted as a sort of seeing-eye cat, Scarlett said. SPCA staff intended for the brothers to be adopted together.

But a week after the pair were put up for adoption, Jack Daniels vanished from his enclosure. Someone had catnapped him.

“How or why that happened, I can’t say,” said SPCA spokeswoman Jennifer Lu. “But we had the police involved, volunteers looking for him. We were very worried.”

Jack Daniels seemed lost forever. Jim Beam meanwhile, was adopted by a nice San Francisco family, Lu said.

But on Aug. 4, New York City animal control officers spied a nearly blind, apparently homeless, black cat ambling along 110th Street, and they brought him to the city’s nearby animal shelter. Staff scanned his microchip and contacted the registered owner: the San Francisco SPCA.

“That shelter is so busy. To think that someone took the time to track us down … I’m actually very moved by it,” Scarlett said. “When you think of all the horrible things that happen in the world, it’s such a beautiful thing to see so many people come together for a little black cat.”

The next hurdle was how to return him to San Francisco. An SPCA volunteer e-mailed Dr. Jennifer Gabriele, a veterinarian who formerly worked for the San Francisco SPCA but has since relocated to New York, asking if she knew anyone who was flying to San Francisco and could transport Jack Daniels.

Enter Falciani, who happened to be on the phone with Gabriele, her cats’ vet, when Gabriele received the e-mail.

“She told me the story, and I said, ‘Sure, I can go,’ ” Falciani said.

So Falciani took time off work to bail Jack Daniels out of New York’s animal shelter and took him in a cat carrier by subway to her home in Brooklyn. After two nights there, he spent the weekend at Gabriele’s vet clinic, then, with Falciani as an escort, hopped a free JetBlue flight to SFO.

“He’s in great shape. He likes to snuggle and make muffins (knead his paws),” Scarlett said. “Whoever had him obviously kept him indoors. He’s very affectionate and friendly.”

It’s possible Jack Daniels has an owner in New York who’s looking for him now, Scarlett said. But unless someone comes forward, Jack Daniels will go up for adoption – again – at the San Francisco SPCA within a day or two.

Falciani, meanwhile, is enjoying three free nights in San Francisco, courtesy of Kimpton Hotels.

“It made me sad to say goodbye to Jack Daniels. You get attached very quickly,” she said. “Although it’s great to be in San Francisco, this will fly by, as most fun things do.”

E-mail Carolyn Jones at carolynjones@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C – 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

The Incredible Journey – Book

Homeward Bound – The Incredible Journey – Movie

August 16, 2010 Posted by | animal behavior, Just One More Pet, Pet Friendship and Love, Pets, Success Stories, Unusual Stories | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fur and Feathers Fly As San Francisco Weighs Pet Sales Ban

What began as a proposal to ban sales of dogs and cats quickly grew to include birds, hamsters, rats and other small mammals. Shelters and rescue groups could still offer adoptions…

San Francisco weighs ban on pet sales

Jennifer Grafelman, general manager of the Animal Connection pet store in San Francisco, displays a fuzzy chinchilla. She and others are fighting a proposal that would ban sales of any animal with fur or feathers. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times / July 23, 2010)

By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times  –  July 25, 2010 | 8:54 p.m.

Reporting from San Francisco —

Here in the land of animal companions and their faithful guardians — do not call them pets and owners — a battle is raging over just what it means to be creature-friendly.

In true San Francisco fashion, city officials are considering a ban on sales of almost all pets. If the prohibition passes, it would mean no cats for sale here, no dogs, no hamsters, no rats, no guinea pigs, no macaws, no parakeets, no cockatiels, no finches. If Junior wanted a snake, Mom could probably still buy him one within the city’s precious 47 square miles. But forget about those mice for Drago’s dinner.

The proposal started out small: prohibit commerce in cats and dogs as a way to discourage puppy mills and kitten factories. South Lake Tahoe and West Hollywood passed such laws within the last 18 months; in Texas, Austin and El Paso are considering similar ones.

But this being San Francisco, the discussion didn’t stop there.

After multiple meetings of the Animal Control & Welfare Commission and hours of impassioned testimony — peppered with the word “symbolic” — the narrow proposition blossomed to include most creatures great and small. The commission is set to vote on a ban in August. If it passes, the Board of Supervisors will weigh in.

Jennifer Grafelman, general manager of the Animal Connection pet store and an enthusiastic rat breeder, says she hates puppy mills. But the proposal “has so easily snowballed into small animals and birds. … Where’s it going to end? Reptiles and fish could be next.”

But Rebecca Katz, head of San Francisco’s animal control department, says the prohibition could help solve one of her shelter’s biggest little problems: Hamsters, she said, are euthanized at a greater rate than any other animal. Banning their sale could curtail such deaths.
Humans on both sides of the pet-sales debate cloak their arguments in terms of what’s best for the critters involved. The pro-pet-store faction launched a group called Protect Our Precious Animals. But the issue really bubbles up at the nexus of lives and livelihoods.
Nationally, pets are a $40-billion to $45-billion-a-year business, and trade groups have gotten involved in the fight. The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council has a plea on its website “urging those who support the right to have pets” to contact San Francisco officials “in opposition to this blatant anti-pet proposal.”

Even Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly has joined the fray. San Franciscans, he blustered recently, are “kooks!” “Insane!” The proposal is “fascistic!” “You’re basically taking away people’s freedoms for this kind of far-left vision of Nirvana!”

This tempest in a water bowl began in April, when Philip Gerrie, backyard beekeeper and member of the animal commission, suggested that San Francisco go the way of West Hollywood and South Lake Tahoe.

Although the city has only one store that regularly sells puppies and about half a dozen that sell any animals or birds, Gerrie said, “large pet stores were considering moving into the city that do sell puppies.” A ban on puppy sales, he thought, was “preemptive” and “doable.”
But at the April animal commission meeting, the discussion turned to other animals that are euthanized, Gerrie said, “and that’s when we started thinking about what we call the smalls — hamsters, rats, guinea pigs, chinchillas, mice, five little furry things sold in pet stores.”
The matter came up again in May and June when bird activist Elizabeth Young begged commission members to add her feathered friends to the list of protected species.

“Birds are extremely intelligent and emotional,” Young, a volunteer with Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue, told the panel. “All kept birds, no matter what kind, suffer horribly when not taken care of well.”

In July, a couple dozen heated speakers from both sides piped up during the meeting, which stretched to four hours, “but it felt like five,” Gerrie said.

Rick French, owner of the Animal Company in the swank Noe Valley neighborhood, said that during the meeting he rattled off a list of obscure San Francisco laws he’d found on the Internet. It’s illegal here “to wipe your windshield with dirty underwear…you can add to those, pet stores without pets.”

“It didn’t go over too well,” said French, who sells pet supplies and birds and is a cofounder of Protect Our Precious Animals.

The actual proposal has yet to be written, Gerrie said, and he’s a little cagey about just how far he plans to push the prohibition.

But this is his thinking so far: Cats and dogs would be out because of puppy mills and kitten factories. Birds would be out because of “their sensitivity and inappropriateness as pets; they are wild animals.” Hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas and guinea pigs would be out because of high euthanasia rates. Sales of bunnies and chicks were axed in San Francisco more than 30 years ago; you can thank Easter excesses and pint-sized attention spans for that.

That would pretty much leave the least cuddly creatures on pet store shelves — reptiles, amphibians, fish. The bottom line: If you want anything furry or feathered, go to a shelter or rescue group and adopt.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said he is “not aware” of any other jurisdiction considering such a widespread ban. And he’s not sold on the San Francisco effort.

“I think the best thing would be to start with [banning] the sale of dogs and cats from these pet stores,” he said. With a broader ban, “I think you attract a set of additional opponents that sink an otherwise achievable goal.”

French, the longtime retailer, says he does not believe that banning animal sales would keep abandoned creatures out of harm’s way. What he does know is that it would imperil his business.

“If I don’t have a bird to sell,” said French, “I don’t sell a cage. I don’t sell bird toys. I don’t sell seed. But it’s about freedom of choice. If someone wants a bird, they’ll go to Berkeley. This will solve none of the problems the commission sees.”

maria.laganga@latimes.comSource:  The Los Angeles Times Copyright © 2010,

July 28, 2010 Posted by | Change Number of Pet Restrictive Laws. Ordinances and Rules, Just One More Pet, Pet Owner's Rights, Pets, Political Change | , , | Leave a comment

San Francisco Wants to Ban Pet Sales?

San Francisco Wants to Ban Pet Sales?

If you sell a bird or a snake in San Francisco, you could wind up in jail.

The city’s Commission of Animal Control and Welfare will consider an ordinance tonight that would make it a crime to sell pets – including dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats — everything except for fish.

If the ordinance is passed, San Francisco could become the first city in the nation to ban the sale of all pets.

“People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don’t know what they’re getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized,” Chairwoman Sally Stephens told the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s what we’d like to stop.”

Pet store owners are fighting mad.

“It’s terrible,” pet store manager John Chan told the newspaper. “A pet store that can’t sell pets? It’s ridiculous.”

The Board of Supervisors would have final say on the issue.

by Todd Starnes is a FOX News Radio reporter and author.

July 9, 2010 Posted by | Adopt Just One More Pet, Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Change Number of Pet Restrictive Laws. Ordinances and Rules, Fostering and Rescue, Just One More Pet, Pet Adoption, Pet Friendship and Love, Pets, Political Change, Unusual Stories, We Are All God's Creatures | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Cat declawing now a crime in San Francisco and Beverly Hills – CA

For the couch: Some pet owners have their cats declawed to prevent damage to household items. (AP File Photo)

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco has become the first major city in the nation to outlaw the declawing of cats.

Some pet owners declaw their felines to protect themselves, or their furniture, from scratches. But pet advocates condemn the practice as animal cruelty.

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 to enact a ban on the declawing of cats. Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Michela Alioto-Pier voted against the legislation.

“It is well-documented and well-understood from a medical prospective that [declawing] is torture. It is a form of animal cruelty,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who introduced the legislation.

Other California cities are considering adopting similar bans. The Los Angeles City Council is expected to vote on whether to enact a ban by the end of the year. West Hollywood banned declawing in 2003. Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and Berkeley are considering similar ordinances. Declawing is illegal in 20 countries, including most of Europe, Brazil, Japan and Israel.

The California Veterinary Medical Association opposed the legislation. (Shame on them… it is like AMA, who stands up for Big Pharma and money making procedures, not patients.) The group said declawing should be left up to veterinarians and not politicians.

“I don’t support the board making those types of medical decisions,” Alioto-Pier told The Examiner after the meeting. “It seems misplaced. I think that the doctors and the vets should be making those decisions. And if it’s a bigger issue than that then the state of California should be outlawing that.”

Violators of the ban, such as anyone who declaws a cat or a pet owner who approves of a declawing, could face up to six months in jail or a fine of up to $1,000.

Many cities have decided to consider such a ban because a state law was recently adopted that would prohibit cities from enacting the bans after Jan. 1.

Vote was held and passed on Nov 5th in Beverly Hills.

Options:  Get your cat a scratching pole, take them for a walk on a leash and clip their nails.

Try Pedi-Paws –

November 7, 2009 Posted by | animals, Just One More Pet, Pet Friendship and Love, Pets, Political Change, Stop Animal Cruelty | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment