Not content with just banning sales of dogs and cats, San Francisco recently expanded that proposed legislation to include fish. I tried and tried to ignore the story and wrote it off. I mean, if they'll elect Nancy Pelosi over and over again, this is par for the course. I actually get their initial logic behind the thing - puppy mills are awful. However, now the proposed legislation that began with puppy mills, then went to "anything with fur or feathers," now includes all pets. Fish, turtles, snakes, all of it. I suppose it is still legal to own one of these creatures, you just won't be able to buy one in San Francisco. (So what's the point?)
There are arguments on both sides: some criticize the law for putting small businesses, like pet shops, out of work. Others argue for the animals.
But when we get to statements like this...
"Why fish? Why not fish?" said Philip Gerrie, a member of the city's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare and a coauthor of the proposal. "From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them. If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.… Our culture sanctions this, treating them as commodities and expendable."
...I must disagree.
There's no way on earth you'll convince me that my dogs "don't have feelings" or emotions.
The argument over the legislation at the SF Commission meeting got rather heated as they debated the humane aspect of selling live rodents as snake food:
"If a snake is caught with a rodent in a box, the rodent can scratch its eye and cause an infection," said Hemphill, who noted that reptiles on display at the California Academy of Sciences eat dead, frozen prey. "The snake can't escape, and the rodent might be stuck for one or two days in the box with the snake because the snake's not hungry right then.Good grief.
I'm glad they don't have any other real problems in California to worry about.
