San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
James, I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in animal shelters. Every year in America, five million cats and dogs are gassed to death or lethally injected with sodium pentobarbital in these shelters. The word 'euthanasia' is a grotesque euphemism. There is no mercy in these deaths. Most of the animals are healthy, rambunctious, and young. They die terrified, and they die pointlessly: very few are vicious; most are capable of forming deep affectionate bonds with humans. This is what happens -- what really happens -- every day in these shelters. The links are graphic and upsetting. They're also reality.
Concern for the welfare and dignity of animals is not confined to nihilist Leftists such as Peter Singer or local totalitarians who seek to regulate pets out of existence. Have you read Matthew Scully's immensely moving, immensely disturbing book Dominion? A completely conservative case can be made, should be made, for treating animals with mercy and respect. Animals are not ordinary commodities, they are living creatures, and they feel pain and fear. No one need suggest that a kitten's life is morally equivalent to a human's to observe that something is terribly wrong when we casually dispose of one much as we would the butane in a Bic lighter: that is the mark of a callow society, a cruel society. It does not speak well for us that we kill millions of sentient, sensitive animals every year through grotesque, painful methods such as gassing and heart-sticking. Pet stores are one of the main reasons we do this.
Now many people may wonder and ask, just why are are there so many unwanted pets in the first place to create this tragic situation and where so many unwanted pets are killed in shelters, whether by gas chamber, heartstick or even by injection to begin with? First, there are the puppy and kitten mills that are still prevalent and where animals are bred and bred and bred, over and over again. Thankfully more and more of these mill type breeders are being shut down. These breeders crank out animals like an assembly line and usually wind up in pet stores for sale. And don't kid yourself, it's not just a little local pet shop that sells puppies or kittens from these mills, but also some of those fancy high-priced pet stores in Beverly Hills, California where the likes of celebrities will get their dogs from, and they aren't even aware that those animals are coming from mills.
Yes, snakes eat rodents. Yes, tigers eat gazelles, and yes, nature is savage and cruel. That doesn't mean we need to add to the misery. They have no choice but to be beasts: We do. If air conditioning is the mark of an advanced civilization that has elevated itself above the State of Nature, even more so is the mercy we display toward animals.
- Comment (63)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Ahhh! I'm in an argument with my favorite contributor! Very uncomfortable....
Claire, I've owned several iguanas in my life that I bought at petshops. I can't imagine that right would exist under the Berlinski plan, since I don't think iguana shelters exist. I could bear the deprivation, but we can't pretend that choice wouldn't be sacrificed.
But more importantly, currently I own two rescue greyhounds and a rescue mutt, the latter of which was purchased at a petshop, which coaxed me into providing a nice home for the pup by essentially marketing it to me when I was there for another purpose. Seems a win-win, which is why I think the problem needs to be addressed by regulating where and how petshops get their animals, not by eliminating petshops. A possible compromise, friend?
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Great points, Trace and Bryan. The market failure aspect of this is pretty interesting, and it might be related to:
Could it be that the market would be improved through better information and, perhaps, the more customer-oriented practices of for-profit enterprises?
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
@ Brian - Rest easy, my friend. Yes, rescues and shelters check you out pretty close. Realize, though, that these organizations are like any other business or non-profit: they don't want to spend more money than they get, and are on very tight budgets. If they take a dog abandoned by some yo-yo who had no business having a pet in the first place, they don't want to turn around and send the dog home with another yo-yo who will wind up dumping the dog on them again. If they do that, they're wasting time and money. I don't know whether that's conservative, but it's prudent.
In your case, it's obvious you're not a yo-yo. You researched breeds that would be right for your situation. You made sure you had the proper space. You sought out a reputable breeder and were ready to care for your dog. Many, many folks in the market for a pet don't act as responsibly as you did; they'll watch Lassie in their cramped apartment, buy a collie, and only then discover collies like room to roam.
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Okay, fine. First, though, this:
And now a confession: I've had two dogs in the past 17 years -- my first was a rescue, and my second, pictured here, was something sort of in the grey zone -- she was a backyard puppy, a litter of 9, and a dog wrangler I know (a term of art in the film business, used to describe someone who gets the dogs to hit their marks) sourced a bunch of Lab puppies for the film "Marley & Me," which I still can't see due to its sad ending. So I'm sort of on the fence here, in the breeder vs. rescue debate. My favorite dog writer, though, the perfectly named Jon Katz, has written well on this subject here, and also here and here.
Meanwhile, please admire my beautiful and perfect dog, Illy.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
You bet. When our board was starting a capital campaign for a new shelter, the plan was to locate the new adoption center in a well recognized commercial area and replicate a traditional retail experience. We meant to increase revenue from adoptions that could in turn fund additional shelter space to cut down on the number of euthanizations.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Sometimes, a person should be allowed to fail. Governments don't exist to eliminate pain and injustice.
I agree completely that acquiring a pet should seldom be an impulse decision (picking up strays and injured often is, necessarily). But that doesn't mean it's a mistake that should not be tolerated. Perhaps, like adultery, abandoning an animal is a sin that merits social reproach but not legal action.
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Not for me, Scott, I love a good argument. And thanks for calling me your favorite contributor.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Or a little kick boxing action from you-know-who... what about a reality show that sends Claire around the country kicking the mattress-stuffing out of puppy-mill operators? Hmm... Or maybe that's why she had to leave the country in the first place?
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
There are all sorts of laws and regulations put in place specifically for moral, humane, or "good of society" reasons. There is no conflict between such laws and conservatism. In most places, you can't abuse a pet regardless of whether you get it at a shelter, a breeder, or from a rescue group. We domesticated these animals and have an obligation to ensure they are treated humanely.
I'm on the fence about banning pet sales. But the "a real conservative wouldn't advocate such a law" arguments get on my nerves. It confuses conservatism with anarchy. The free market springs from a stable, moral society - not vice versa.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Discrimination! Only Contributors (we haff our caste system here, tenk yoo veddy much) are allowed to post dog pictures. Mine is the identical twin to Sen. Scott Brown's.
Trace does make a good point about selective promotion of regulation to benefit our "pet" (ouch on the bad pun) causes. I am wondering if any here are fervent vegetarians (as is Matthew Scully, who wrote anti-vegan Sarah Palin's speeches in 2008) on anti-vivisection grounds?
Jul '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
I completely disagree, however, I won't say "when we ban the sale of pets only ciminals will have pets" but it would be close because the kind of people who buy a pet then dump it will still get them and dump them. Nothing will change!! They'll just be bought illegalally then dumped on some country road. If you want to do something perhaps you could crusade for the pet stores to be required to take them back. Might even be good for their bottom line. Certified Prevously Owned Hamsters, could be big!
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Aaron Miller: Governments don't exist to eliminate pain and injustice.
They don't? That's about all I've heard since about January 2008.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Duane, we can fight discrimination!
Purebred pound dog #1, Henry
Purebred pound dog #2, Gipper
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
I am fine with laws against abuse of pets. I am even willing to see mills shut down for abusing pets. My indignation arises from being lectured by people about how I live my life. The urge to tell others how to live, in 2010, comes mainly from the left. Thus I say that it is not conservative. Sorry but "the good of society" is mostly used for elites to tell the rest of us how to act. I have a very *strong* reaction to being told how to live my life.
What we are talking about here is limiting my freedom because other people make bad choices. That is not conservative in any fashion. I am under no moral obligation to go to a shelter or a rescue operation. Someone is willing to sell, and I am willing to buy a well treated animal and give it a good home. Now, where is the morality in making that illegal?
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
We wanted to get a pet from a shelter, but the local shelters are run by animal rights fanatics who don't think a home with human children is suitable for adopting a pet. So we bought one in a pet store.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
And I thought asking for written notice when I move was too much.
To the pro-rescue crowd: If we ban pet stores, will the government also have to regulate how the shelters behave to stop this sort of thing?
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
There are all sorts of restrictions on what people can or cannot sell to each other that have nothing to do with Left or Right. Depending on where you live, you can't set up a strip club next to a school or a liquor store within X number of feet of a church, you can't buy services from a prostitute, you can't gamble. Because we as a society, generally, see those things as Not Good. The argument over what is good and bad goes on eternally, but we've always had "good of society" laws. They're not all from the left, and they're not all bad.
I think it's important to note that most of this sort of thing occurs at the local level. If the people of San Francisco support this law, or the soy milk vending machine law, or whatever, more power to them. As a conservative, I fully support their right to self-determination.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
I agree with local control in general. This topic's title is
San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
That is not a call for local contraol
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
It's an appeal to conscience or individual action, the ultimate in local control. "I wouldn't have you be a criminal for buying a pet, but I'd ask you to just go to a shelter, first..." Does not sound like a call for federal intervention to me.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
San Francisco banning pet stores is a government action. I can well assume the "so should everyone else" is a call for other government actions, and I don't think that is an unreasonable interpretation.