Children and parents in San Francisco may want to hurry if they are considering bringing a pet into their homes. According to a report issued by CNN’s Jack Cafferty, in a ridiculous new attempt of the government to act as big brother and control the lives of its citizens, San Francisco is considering a ban on the sale of all pets excluding fish. This proposed ban would include everything from the sale of cats and dogs to hamsters, mice, guinea pigs, birds, reptiles, and snakes.

Mr. Cafferty states that “the city's commission of animal control and welfare calls all these critters "companion animals."The chairwoman tells the San Francisco chronicle that people buy small animals all the time as an "impulse buy"... they don't think about what they're getting into. The proposed ban - believed to be the first of its kind - would require San Francisco residents who want a pet to either go to another city, adopt one from a shelter, or find it in the classifieds.” This ban would prevent persons who do not have the ability to travel from gaining ownership of a pet. It is discrimination at the most brutal form.
What part of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is San Francisco confused about?

Wheather owning a pet is an impulse buy or not is not the main issue at hand. For persons such as the elderly, children, and mentally disabled owning a pet can be extremely therapeutic. While owning a pet does evoke a certain amount of responsibility, it is ludicrous to attempt to ban people from making a decision that is ultimately a very personal choice. What’s next, a ban on fast food or grocery stores because impulsively hungry people might want to buy food? This proposed ban is absolutely ridiculous and goes against every concept of free enterprise that drives American consumerism.

This ban would affect all pet store businesses, potentially putting them either out of business or significantly reducing their profit margins. While I completely support the use of animal shelters and believe that the services they provide to both animals and potential animal families is not only necessary but also humane, I firmly believe that choosing to adopt from an animal shelter or a pet store is in essence a personal decision that the government has no right to determine. This ban is an oppressive campaign by anti-pet politicians who want to control the lives of their citizens. When a pet store is run with proper care and consideration of its animals it can be a vital contributor to its community.

The problems begin to ensue when owners of pet stores do not properly care for the animals under their supervision or do not offer any kid of education to their customers. A lack of responsible ownership is not the pets, or even the fault of the pet store owners, it is the fault of irresponsible and uneducated people who do not either understand or consider the decision they are making. Perhaps instead of banning the sale of pets San Francisco should consider a more reasonable restriction such as a screening process for potential pet owners similar to the screening process that potential gun owners submit to. The only thing that a ban will accomplish is increase the amount of illegal activity and animal cruelty. A ban on pet stores will create more illegal profits for underground puppy mills run by criminals who care nothing about the animals instead of profits for responsible pet store owners who carefully care for every animal on their premises.