Have you guys seen this?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think they have the right idea but are going about it all wrong. Yes, people buy animals on impulse, fish included. Eliminating pet stores is not the answer. Education is the solution. If people researched their prospective pet (like we encourage) you wont have a great dane in a 500sf apartment or a goldfish in a 1 gallon bowl... People buy such animals as jack russell terriers because they are cute but they dont realize they are hyperactive and need lots of exercise. I think when you walk into a pet store, any pet store, you should have to 'show your knowledge'. Pet stores need to be more proactive in animal care. For example: Most pet stores will sell you a goldfish and a 1 gallon bowl or a betta and one of those betta vases with one of those plants. I know its all about the Almighty dollar but come on, this is cruel and any pet store worth a grain of salt knows this.

:soap:
 
maniacally racing on their exercise wheels at 2 a.m
Do they mean the pets or the owners?

In all seriousness though, I agree, a ban is not going to alleviate any of the problems of irresponsible pet keeping.
 
Do they mean the pets or the owners?

In all seriousness though, I agree, a ban is not going to alleviate any of the problems of irresponsible pet keeping.

no, it's just going to relocate the area of sales.. people who want a puppy for their 2 year old are going to get a puppy for their 2 year old, no matter what.
 
Kinda reminds me of the HR 669 bill from a year or two ago, where they tried to ban the sale or trade of animals non-indigenous to North America (although it would be a bit more widespread than just SF). I understand that invasive species are terrible for the environment, but banning sells of pets isn't the way to go about solving it. Even if they did, there would still be people trying to smuggle animals into the country.
 
Throw the baby out the water is the first thing that comes to mind. If SF stops selling, people will go elsewhere. The problem will still exist, and you'll lose revenue for the city.
 
I really think they should focus on education, as stated above. IMO pet stores should educate their employees on the correct care for such animals, and the consumer should be educated as well. Send them home with a care packet or something. Promote it. Businesses come up with plenty of ways to promote themselves for money. I'm sure they could think of something. I think a lot more people would go somewhere that can show them the proper care for their pets.
 
I really think they should focus on education, as stated above. IMO pet stores should educate their employees on the correct care for such animals, and the consumer should be educated as well. Send them home with a care packet or something. Promote it. Businesses come up with plenty of ways to promote themselves for money. I'm sure they could think of something. I think a lot more people would go somewhere that can show them the proper care for their pets.

+1
 
But think of how much money the pet stores would lose if everyone kept everything healthy. I'm not sure where i heard this, but pet stores make barely anything on fish, but they make the money on the food, medicine, tanks etc.
 
That's the reason WalMart carries fish. to sell hardware, food and medications.
 
I think we have to rethink the word "PET". Is a Lion or a Tiger really a pet. What about a 10' long Boa...Get real some animals belong in the wild and are not Pets.
 
The problem is money. In a capitalist society, if someone will pay, someone will provide.
 


That is freaking SWEET!!

On topic, this is the dumbest attempt at a dumb law ever. They're treating the affects not the cause. Education, like said before, is the answer. If most pet stores were like GOOD LFSs, that won't sell you fish unless you tell them you have a tank cycled, this wouldn't be a problem. (And I mean not just with fish, with other pets too.) If I were a LFS owner, every time someone bought a fish, I'd ask all of the particulars of their tank. I probably wouldn't make much money, but I'd be a good fish keeper.
 
Here's an idea for a practical solution:

Make prospective buyers take a test. A committee can define minimum requirements for an ethical treatment of an animal. They should also define definite "pros" and "cons" to the keeping of different species. For instance, hamsters bite, and run on an exercise wheel late at night. Bam, there is a question or two, right there.

Next step: Employees hand out packets containing all the relevant information, and write the date large on the top. 1 week later, the prospective buyer can return and, in the store (supervised environment, but maybe the info packet should be allowed? dunno), take a multiple choice test (with several tests containing randomized question order). Pass - congratulations, you now qualify for purchase! Fail - Please try again in 1 more week. A store employee will go over wrong answers, and give more details.

This could get complicated, for instance, fish have hugely different requirements species to species, and dog breeds have different requirements as well. This is why I think subcommittees (and sub-subs, etc) should be formed. For instance, fish -> FW -> plecos. Fish -> FW -> tetras. Then the tetra committee can determine what info is important for tetras, and form subcommittees if the information is too vast. For example, Fish -> FW -> tetras -> predatory tetras.

Did I explain that clearly? I'm not sure I did.
 
Back
Top Bottom