Ban On Pet Sales

I. In the article, "The no pet stores proposal," by Ken White, he supports the proposal for not selling pets in stores. He works for SPCA, so he believes in protecting animals. Despite the fact that he supports banning the commercial sale of pets from the stores, he doesn’t know the reason. He said in his article, "A ban which would, for reasons which are not quite clear to me, cover all animals but with the exception of fish." If they want to ban cats and dogs, they should have banned fish too, because fish also needs to be treated nicely.

The author mentioned that some people think there is no reason to ban animals such as hamsters from the stores, because there are more important problems than this case, like economic problem, etc. But this is an Animal & Welfare Commission, so it's their job to deal with animals. Despite the fact that the reporter said on average, animal shelters in the U.S. are euthanizing 35 % of their dogs and cats, he thinks that some reporters have the wrong facts, because the correct fact is that shelters have to kill a lot of cats and dogs. It's not even about hamsters, but about cats and dogs. San Francisco has a lot of problems with cats and dogs in the shelters, so they have to kill a lot of them. Even though people don't need to buy pets, they buy them.

Despite the fact that he supports banning the commercial sale of pets from stores, he's not saying he supports the proposal. He's only saying it should be discussed seriously. He also said that it should cover fish too.

II. According to the article, "Banning Pet Stores in SF: A Solution in Search of a Problem, by Michael Yaki, who is working as an attorney and political consultant. He's arguing against the proposal. He thinks that you should be able to sell pets in stores. Even though the commission protects animals, he thinks the Commission isn't logical. He said that the person who wrote the proposal is not logical. He thinks hamsters are not important. He thinks that banning pet stores from selling anything but fish is a very silly thing. Although many people don't know how to take care of animals, human nature is to buy pets. If people don't know how to take care of pets, the Commission shouldn't ban the pet stores. People will always want pets even though they don't know how to take care of pets really well. Despite the fact that human nature is to not to take care of pets really well, people love pets.

Although the law has banned smoking and guns, we can't compare them with the animals. Smoking and guns are bad, but pets are not a problem. So, I think why should we worry about pets? Anti-smoking laws are concerned about health and anti-gun laws are concerned about people’s safety. Although fish, food animals, and craigslist are an exception, the author is suggesting that the proposal isn't going to work because there are too many exceptions, because the proposal is not written well. It doesn't solve the problem of humane treatment of animals. This is a waste of time when the city has big problems.

My opinion about banning pet stores in SF is that I disagreed pets should be banned. If the government bans the pet stores, it will effect  the economy, because a lot of people will lose  their business. The government should find a way to solve the problem so animals will not end up in the shelters and being euthanized. According to the article the manager of a pet store said, "If you buy a pet and it doesn't work, you can always return it." I think that's a good idea, because there are a lot of people who want pets. It's human nature that people will always want to buy pets, even though they don't know how to take care of them really well. Human nature makes people love pets. If the government banned the pets store, fish should not be an exception. Fish needs to be treat really well too. The government should be concerned more about the economy, not just waste time about the animals.