Ban-Crazy San Francisco Does It Again: Nanny-State City Considers Banning Sales of Pet Goldfish, Tropical Fish, & Guppies (video)
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on June 16, 2011
The upside-down, freakish world of statist politics and all its freedom-robbing mandates is well represented by the elected kooks in San Francisco, aka “Ban” Francisco.
And now we can add pet fish to the “gazillion things that San Francisco liberals want to ban” list.
It’s all part of a new, vague plan intended to stop “impulse purchases.” Uh, oh — does that include the impulse buying of expensive women’s shoes and overpriced Snickers bars at the movies? No? OK, that’s good.
For quite a while now, the proposed banning of other pet sales within the city limits — such as puppies, kittens, and hamsters — have been seriously considered off and on again by liberal lawmakers (or just taxing to kingdom come any pet) and far-left animal rights activists. Adding fish to their proposed pet ban (and even pet-supply stores have been under fire in San Francisco lately) is not much of a surprise. What is a surprise is that fish have been added because of, and I quote, the “inhumane suffering” of fish.
Inhumane? Let that sink in a bit.
This wacky proposed goldfish ban could very likely end up being tabled as the cat-dog-hamster pet ban was following the deafening outcry from SF residents, but I must emphasize — you can never underestimate the power of crazy.
With the unemployment rate in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area hitting 9.5% for the month of April, this likely won’t rank as a high priority right now for many people struggling to find a job or put food on the table for their families, which makes it a perfect time for lawmakers to quietly slip it in under people’s radar. But it could rank as a significant outrage for pet lovers, pet store owners, and other Americans who see this as yet another over-the-top power grab by the city’s Nanny State liberal government. Like the unpopular mandating of foul-smelling low-flow toilets that use much more water than the conventional toilets they replaced.
FOX News: San Francisco Looks to Ban Pet Goldfish
From Science 2.0, San Francisco Goes After Goldfish:
San Francisco, always at the avant-garde of kooky, pointless gestures that annoy many and help few, thinks the worst problem it faces today are ‘impulse’ buys of goldfish, so they want to ban them.
Gotta put an end to the inhumane conditions perpetuated by the Big Goldfish military-industrial complex; their homes are completely underwater and they only get fed once a day. Meanwhile, the pollution and slave labor of Apple barely gets noticed. It helps that few activists own goldfish but all of them own iPhones.
From NBC Bay Area, San Francisco Mulls Goldfish Ban:
First kittens, then puppies and hamsters and now 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.
The San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission wants to take away your goldfish, proposing a bill that would also include a renewed ban on pets like puppies, kittens and hamsters.
The proposed ban is meant to discourage “impulse buys” of pets that sometimes end up at shelters, said commission member Philip Gerrie.
He said goldfish, guppies and other tropical fish were added to the proposed ban because of what he called the “inhumane suffering of fish” and the way the fish are harvested.
“It causes animal suffering,” Gerrie told Fox News Radio. “Whole reefs and ecosystems are being exploited for whatever might be marketable or sellable.”
The Board of Supervisors considered a similar ban last year that would have included dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats and guinea pigs – but not fish. That proposed ban was tabled last August. The supervisor said they were going to reconsider it in January of this year – but did not.
The proposed fish ban has local pet store owners up in arms.
“The city is taking more and more control,” said Ocean Aquarium owner Justin Hau in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. “They are very stupid.”
What you can and cannot do in San Francisco, but can practically anywhere else (or nearly everywhere else) in the country is mind-boggling — some of these SF bans are still in the works:
For instance, McDonald’s Happy Meals toys are banned in San Francisco. Illegal aliens, however, are embraced and encouraged in the sanctuary city. As long as they aren’t sitting or lying on sidewalks.
Activists are working hard to make circumcision for boys under the age of 18 illegal — it will be up for vote in November. In light of the recent Weinergate and Democrat Rep. Weiner’s bulging briefs photo, no telling how this vote will go.
San Francisco has the toughest mandatory recycling laws in the country, the throwing away of orange peels and coffee grounds is illegal and if you’re caught doing it, could be fined a hundred dollars (there currently is a moratorium on fines until at least July 2011 for tenants and owners of multi-family buildings or multi-tenant commercial properties).
PETA activists announced in April that they want SF’s Tenderloin District renamed for tempeh, a soy-based meat substitute, because it is a “cruelty-free food” (however, the Tenderloin district is not named after the tenderloin steak, but facts are pesky things for many liberals and activists).
San Francisco had a complicated cell phone radiation disclosure law in 2010, which required cell phone stores to post the amount of radiation that each of its models emits. The wireless industry filed suit, saying the law was misleading for consumers because there currently is no credible, peer-review-supported science to corroborate that cell phone radiation causes any health problems. The law required that phone store owners post how much energy a cell phone user would absorb into his or her head while using the phone. In May 2011, the law was backtracked because of the varying data, the unreliability of the data, the confusion for consumers concerning the data, and the true relevancy of the data. But, knowing SF and its tenacity for laws, the cell phone radiation law will return.
There are simply too many San Francisco laws to count, too many to attempt to keep track of, even for those who work daily with the city’s ordinances… for more “Ban” Francisco examples, check out this bulletted compilation at Human Events.
Excerpt from Ken MacQueen’s Macleans.ca article that was posted on May 26, 2011 — You can’t do that in San Francisco — In San Francisco, bans are a way of life:
…Just a taste of things banned in San Fran: plastic shopping bags; sugary soft drinks and bottled water sold on city property; sitting/lying on sidewalks; toys in non-nutritious fast food meals for children; the declawing of cats; smoking in sports stadiums and open-air restaurants or outside doors, windows and vents of buildings, echoing bans in many Canadian cities; tobacco sales in pharmacies—again, most Canadian provinces were years ahead; city staff visiting or doing business with Arizona, whose immigration law “set the clock back on a generation of civil rights gains,” notes the ordinance; the battleship Iowa (rejected as a massive floating museum because supervisors objected to the war in Iraq and the military’s treatment of gays and lesbians); cellphones sold without posted radiation emission levels; soliciting charitable donations at San Francisco’s airport; city contracts “with any person or entity” utilizing “any tropical hardwood, tropical hardwood wood product, virgin redwood or virgin redwood wood product.”
Coming soon: expanding the tobacco prohibition to include smokeless electronic cigarettes (they still deliver nicotine and encourage smoking, goes the argument), and a ban on the unsolicited distribution of Yellow Pages phone books—a proposal that has the unanimous approval of a committee of the board of supervisors, the governing council for San Francisco city and county. One controversial idea that didn’t make the cut: a city-wide ban on the sale of “companion animals”—essentially all pets but fish. It was shelved by the animal control and welfare commission. For now.
Unlike the Ten Commandments, there is no single list of civic Thou Shalt Nots for San Francisco. It’s often unclear if you’ve sinned; best to assume the worst. Ordinances are posted year by year on the board of supervisors’ website, going back to 1999. “I don’t know how much time you have,” says a woman at the clerk’s office. “You’ll see a lot of interesting ones there.”
San Francisco comes by its reputation honestly. California often leads the charge on law reform, with the city by the bay usually at the bleeding edge. One recent exception is a proposed statewide prohibition on the possession and sale of shark fins, meant to protect threatened shark populations. Hawaii and Oregon have already moved on shark fin bans, but the issue is proving an uncomfortable test of virtue for San Francisco politicians. State Sen. Leland Yee, who is running for mayor, is among many in the Chinese community who are fighting the ban. In February, Yee led a similar charge that overturned a year-old state ban on importing non-native frogs and turtles for food. In both cases he says the bans would unfairly target Asian-American culture.
The epicentre of opposition to the fin ban is in the city’s vibrant Chinatown, where shark fin soup is a cultural staple for major celebrations. It sells for as much as US$30 a bowl in Chinatown restaurants, and dried fins are locked in glass display cases in many of its herbal and food shops.