Gotta Love San Francisco: The Dogs Get More Standards of Living than People

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco is considering steps to make sure its dogs are well cared for.

The Board of Supervisors will vote Thursday on a proposed law setting minimum creature comforts for the more than 100,000 dogs that live in the city.

The ordinance would regulate the nutritional quality of food fed to dogs, how water is served and specific requirements for dog shelters.

For example, water would have to be served in a non-tipping bowl. Dog houses would have to have a raised floor and dry, clean bedding that's appropriate for the weather.

The ordinance is expected to be approved
Original Article

With a growing homeless problem, taxes out of control, no apartments under $1,000 a month, no homes under $300k and businesses fleeing to Nevada San Francisco finally tackles the hardest hitting political issue known to man.... nutritional requirements of canines and the oh so critical mandating of no tip water bowls.

I'm sure those laid off at 3Com, Sun, HP and countless dot bombs will sleep better tonight.
 
This kind of animal obsession makes me sick. :puke:

It shows how warped the thinking of people are getting these days that they now value animals over humans.

Nothing shows how backwards thinking these people are than the show "animal cops" or something like that. I saw an episode where a lonely, poor old lady was living in a piece of shit apartment that was falling apart cause she couldn't afford better. She had a couple cats and the animal cops came and arrested her for mistreating the cats in that she didn't provide a suitable home for them. She can't afford to do better, but she is denied the right to own a pet and gets arrested for abuse. If she can live in a piece of shit run down place then the stupid cats can live there as well cause they are not better than the old lady.
 
Of course the dogs have more rights than the people. San Fran is the gay capital of the west, and people like you don't want them to have any rights. So fuck, dirt has more rights than the people there.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']This kind of animal obsession makes me sick. :puke:

It shows how warped the thinking of people are getting these days that they now value animals over humans.

Nothing shows how backwards thinking these people are than the show "animal cops" or something like that. I saw an episode where a lonely, poor old lady was living in a piece of shit apartment that was falling apart cause she couldn't afford better. She had a couple cats and the animal cops came and arrested her for mistreating the cats in that she didn't provide a suitable home for them. She can't afford to do better, but she is denied the right to own a pet and gets arrested for abuse. If she can live in a piece of shit run down place then the stupid cats can live there as well cause they are not better than the old lady.[/quote]

So she should be able to own as many cats as she wants even if she can't afford to feed them? Ridiculous. If that were the case, I could have a pony that I don't feed just because he would look good in my backyard.

Owning a pet is a responsibility not a right. If you choose to own a pet, you have to take proper care of it.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Scrubking']This kind of animal obsession makes me sick. :puke:

It shows how warped the thinking of people are getting these days that they now value animals over humans.

Nothing shows how backwards thinking these people are than the show "animal cops" or something like that. I saw an episode where a lonely, poor old lady was living in a piece of shit apartment that was falling apart cause she couldn't afford better. She had a couple cats and the animal cops came and arrested her for mistreating the cats in that she didn't provide a suitable home for them. She can't afford to do better, but she is denied the right to own a pet and gets arrested for abuse. If she can live in a piece of shit run down place then the stupid cats can live there as well cause they are not better than the old lady.[/quote]

So she should be able to own as many cats as she wants even if she can't afford to feed them? Ridiculous. If that were the case, I could have a pony that I don't feed just because he would look good in my backyard.

Owning a pet is a responsibility not a right. If you choose to own a pet, you have to take proper care of it.[/quote]

Funny how you assume things that never happened. She only had 2 or 3 cats and WAS taking care of them and feeding them everyday.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Scrubking']This kind of animal obsession makes me sick. :puke:

It shows how warped the thinking of people are getting these days that they now value animals over humans.

Nothing shows how backwards thinking these people are than the show "animal cops" or something like that. I saw an episode where a lonely, poor old lady was living in a piece of shit apartment that was falling apart cause she couldn't afford better. She had a couple cats and the animal cops came and arrested her for mistreating the cats in that she didn't provide a suitable home for them. She can't afford to do better, but she is denied the right to own a pet and gets arrested for abuse. If she can live in a piece of shit run down place then the stupid cats can live there as well cause they are not better than the old lady.[/quote]

So she should be able to own as many cats as she wants even if she can't afford to feed them? Ridiculous. If that were the case, I could have a pony that I don't feed just because he would look good in my backyard.

Owning a pet is a responsibility not a right. If you choose to own a pet, you have to take proper care of it.[/quote]

Funny how you assume things that never happened. She only had 2 or 3 cats and WAS taking care of them and feeding them everyday.[/quote]

I wasn't assuming anything. You said the cats were taken away due to mistreatment. I've seen the show enough to know they don't take animals away from people who are taking proper care of them.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco is considering steps to make sure its dogs are well cared for.

The Board of Supervisors will vote Thursday on a proposed law setting minimum creature comforts for the more than 100,000 dogs that live in the city.

The ordinance would regulate the nutritional quality of food fed to dogs, how water is served and specific requirements for dog shelters.

For example, water would have to be served in a non-tipping bowl. Dog houses would have to have a raised floor and dry, clean bedding that's appropriate for the weather.

The ordinance is expected to be approved
Original Article

With a growing homeless problem, taxes out of control, no apartments under $1,000 a month, no homes under $300k and businesses fleeing to Nevada San Francisco finally tackles the hardest hitting political issue known to man.... nutritional requirements of canines and the oh so critical mandating of no tip water bowls.

I'm sure those laid off at 3Com, Sun, HP and countless dot bombs will sleep better tonight.[/quote]

Yeah, we should capture and torture the homeless and those snooty animals. That would take care of the problems.
 
My college roomate (not gay) moved to SF about a year ago for more schooling. He was given about 10K financial aid, but when I last heard from him, he was living as a squatter for at least 3 months. I enjoyed his comment on how eating out of dumpsters "wasn't so bad".

Thank goodness if he had a dog at least the dog would have rights like having a roof over his head.
 
Lawmakers never seem to want to tackle the important issues (and actually try to fix them). I am so jaded. It seems like they all just want to focus on getting re-elected or get money by pandering to whoever their monetary supporters are.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']This kind of animal obsession makes me sick. :puke:

It shows how warped the thinking of people are getting these days that they now value animals over humans.

Nothing shows how backwards thinking these people are than the show "animal cops" or something like that. I saw an episode where a lonely, poor old lady was living in a piece of shit apartment that was falling apart cause she couldn't afford better. She had a couple cats and the animal cops came and arrested her for mistreating the cats in that she didn't provide a suitable home for them. She can't afford to do better, but she is denied the right to own a pet and gets arrested for abuse. If she can live in a piece of shit run down place then the stupid cats can live there as well cause they are not better than the old lady.[/quote]

If she mistreats them she has no right to own a pet. And, as someone else said, what gets on that show is worthy of animal abuse. If she couldn't take care of them then she should give up or have them taken away. Though these laws will likely not be enforced as strictly as they are written. There's just so much animal abuse that it will make it easier to take them away from abusive/ neglectful homes. Though some things, as the non tip bowl make sense (assuming it's loosely enforced). If you have a guy who just gave a bowl of water to the dog, and then leaves him in the yard all day without checking (which happens a lot), the dog has no water for the day if the bowl spills. People like that shouldn't have dogs anyway.

Edit: Basically, you are responsible for your pet as you are responsible for a child. Obviously there are differences in how they can/should be treated but it is similar in the sense that they are your responsibility. If she was a parent the womans right to parent her child would likely have been taken away. While not as important, the same logic applies to animals since they are in our care and not taking care of or responsible for themselves, as an adult is.
 
Owning a dog/cat/whatever is not a god-given right. I've seen far too many abused/mistreated/neglected animals in my life think that people have the right to own animals that they don't take care of.

Human beings have options. If you're unemployed you can look for work. If you're homeless, there's no shortage of homeless shelters. If you're too poor to afford food, there are soup kitchens. They're not pretty options, but they're there (or at least they will be as long as us godless socialists have any say in the matter.) A dog chained up in a backyard with no food or water on a below-freezing night has no such choice.
 
Why do you people keep trying to make up what the lady did?

I saw the show and she was treating the animals fine. Period. Stop trying to make stuff up.

The best part of all this is how people want animals to have rights, but then don't care about all the strays biting or chasing people. And they sure don't blink an eye when they pick em up and put them to sleep.

Animal services FINALLY came by during Christmas after many calls throughout the year!! Yeah, they really care. :roll:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Why do you people keep trying to make up what the lady did?

I saw the show and she was treating the animals fine. Period. Stop trying to make stuff up.

The best part of all this is how people want animals to have rights, but then don't care about all the strays biting or chasing people. And they sure don't blink an eye when they pick em up and put them to sleep.

Animal services FINALLY came by during Christmas after many calls throughout the year!! Yeah, they really care. :roll:[/quote]

You yourself said they took the cats away due to mistreatment. Even if the only "mistreatment" was the woman living in squalor, that was enough for the officers on the case. While I did not see this particular episode, I have seen some where I wished they would take the pets and they do not. They give people second chances. I have even seen them get people assistance with dog food.

As far as the stray animal situation, I don't believe that falls under the SPCA's jurisdiction. That sounds more like an Animal Control problem. The SPCA officers are going after owners who mistreat their pets, not just any and every animal case.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']The best part of all this is how people want animals to have rights, but then don't care about all the strays biting or chasing people. And they sure don't blink an eye when they pick em up and put them to sleep. [/quote]

I'm not terribly happy about dogs being put to sleep, but its a whole lot better than starving them to death.
 
Just for the record and for all of you to call me cruel....

I only feed and water my cat once a week. I mean she has an automatic feeder that's never empty and one of those electric water mover/purifiers but still.... PAD ONLY CARES FOR HIS CAT ONCE A WEEK OMG OMG OMG!

Oh and she doesn't have an electric litter box and I only empty it once every 6-7 days. OH THE HUMANITY!

Won't someone please think of the cat!

Just for the record, I took this cat from my parents because they were moving to Slovokia and weren't going to keep her. I've paid probably $1,000 in security deposits for her in 3 different apartments, pay $300 a year more in rent just to keep her. She's one spoiled pussy if you ask me. She's also my baby.

Pets are wonderful and they should be well treated and cared for like children. Since this America though we all know how some people treat their children, animals are just as helpless and just as innocent. However it isn't up to the government to mandate nutritional quality for pets. What kind of dishes they must have and regulations for their "housing".

I'd probably would kill to defend my pet like my child. I may go to jail but can you imagine the press and the love I'd get from PETA???
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Pets are wonderful and they should be well treated and cared for like children. Since this America though we all know how some people treat their children, animals are just as helpless and just as innocent. However it isn't up to the government to mandate nutritional quality for pets. What kind of dishes they must have and regulations for their "housing".[/quote]
Then who is it up to? When your neighbor leaves their dog out on sub-zero nights and only feeds it maybe 3 meals per weeks ('whenever they remember') and gives them water in a bucker that tips over 15 seconds later and doesn't get refilled for 2 days, are you just supposed to ignore it? SOMEBODY have to step in and take care of these animals who can't take care of themselves, and the only group that can (legitimately) do that is the government.

The only other option would be for people to commit a crime by stealing the animal to find it a better home elsewhere (not that I would know anything about that. I certainly would never steal an animal from a neighbor because they neglected it. Or at the very least, I'd never admit it on a public forum :p )
 
[quote name='elprincipe']People that care more about animals than human beings sicken me.[/quote]

Caring for animals isn't incompatible with caring for humans. Of course, the degree to which I care about humans depends on the person we're talking about: Human beings have a lot more opportunities to make choices, and those decisions affect how much I'm going to care for them. Orphans, people who lost their homes in the tsunami or other distasters, people with medical issues that keep them homebound or unable to work, etc, I care for. Mass murderers, CEOs who defraud their companies, televangelists who guzzle retirement funds from gullable grandmothers - not so much.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='elprincipe']People that care more about animals than human beings sicken me.[/quote]

Caring for animals isn't incompatible with caring for humans. Of course, the degree to which I care about humans depends on the person we're talking about: Human beings have a lot more opportunities to make choices, and those decisions affect how much I'm going to care for them. Orphans, people who lost their homes in the tsunami or other distasters, people with medical issues that keep them homebound or unable to work, etc, I care for. Mass murderers, CEOs who defraud their companies, televangelists who guzzle retirement funds from gullable grandmothers - not so much.[/quote]

I don't see how you read my comment as you couldn't care for animals and humans at the same time. It's the PETA crowd that care more about animals than humans that disgust me.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't see how you read my comment as you couldn't care for animals and humans at the same time. It's the PETA crowd that care more about animals than humans that disgust me.[/quote]
Well, considering that it came right after my post... This is the reason that the quote button exists :p

Actually, I'm not really sure where exactly your comment fits in, then. If wanting to make sure that dogs get to have water, are fed occasionally and have a warm place to sleep at night makes me (or anyone) a member of PETA, sign me up. That's really all this law does.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='elprincipe']People that care more about animals than human beings sicken me.[/quote]

Caring for animals isn't incompatible with caring for humans. Of course, the degree to which I care about humans depends on the person we're talking about: Human beings have a lot more opportunities to make choices, and those decisions affect how much I'm going to care for them. Orphans, people who lost their homes in the tsunami or other distasters, people with medical issues that keep them homebound or unable to work, etc, I care for. Mass murderers, CEOs who defraud their companies, televangelists who guzzle retirement funds from gullable grandmothers - not so much.[/quote]

I don't see how you read my comment as you couldn't care for animals and humans at the same time. It's the PETA crowd that care more about animals than humans that disgust me.[/quote]

They do care more about animals than most people, some even consider them equal to humans, but you are looking at a very small minority who believe most animals are superior to humans. They basically just have more lines that cannot be crossed. For example, if I could cure aids by doing medical tests on 20,000 people and in the process essentially torture them to death, should I do it? Most scientists would say no. That's how many peta people see it. Sure, I could save millions of people, but it's not ethical to torture thousands of animals in the process.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='elprincipe']People that care more about animals than human beings sicken me.[/quote]

Caring for animals isn't incompatible with caring for humans. Of course, the degree to which I care about humans depends on the person we're talking about: Human beings have a lot more opportunities to make choices, and those decisions affect how much I'm going to care for them. Orphans, people who lost their homes in the tsunami or other distasters, people with medical issues that keep them homebound or unable to work, etc, I care for. Mass murderers, CEOs who defraud their companies, televangelists who guzzle retirement funds from gullable grandmothers - not so much.[/quote]

I don't see how you read my comment as you couldn't care for animals and humans at the same time. It's the PETA crowd that care more about animals than humans that disgust me.[/quote]


Agreed.

PETA gives money to terrorists to blow up research labs to free animals. They want all animals free, cats dogs, monkies, and even bees. But yet if the animals are free they don't want animal jails, they are one the craziest groups on the planet, up there with the KKK and "Muslim" extremeists.
 
I think that would be the animal liberation front and the earth liberation front, at least the whole terror thing. Those are the groups that want all animals "free" in the human sense, as in not even pets.

edit: Nice cats, all golden and one white one that stands out.
 
[quote name='bignick']I took good care of my cat.
www.dylanthecat.com[/quote]

I saw that earlier, great cat. You're one of the last people I thought would be a cat person, especially giving it a birthday and all. Wish more people took care of their animals, then we wouldn't need these laws.

I've wanted a cat ever since the one my family had died, I was only 6 at the time and the cat was about 20 or so (it was a stray so we're not certain). Problem is they usually attack birds and rats (though my old one never bothered anything indoors, not even wild mice), and while I no longer have birds, the rats would be a problem.
 
The PETA nuts are what made me honestly believe and be scared to death that 28 Days wasn't so far fetched. I mean I can see animal rights nuts in a lab being told by a lab tech don't open the cage, that animal is deadly and will kill us all and the nut not caring.

I think more than anything about that movie the "how" it happened was far too believeable.
 
[quote name='David85']Are you going to keep all those?[/quote]
No, probably one, MAYBE 2. Right now, I have good homes lined up for at least 3 of them, possibly 4.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't see how you read my comment as you couldn't care for animals and humans at the same time. It's the PETA crowd that care more about animals than humans that disgust me.[/quote]
Well, considering that it came right after my post... This is the reason that the quote button exists :p[/quote]

I don't follow you. You misinterpreted my comment.

[quote name='Drocket']Actually, I'm not really sure where exactly your comment fits in, then. If wanting to make sure that dogs get to have water, are fed occasionally and have a warm place to sleep at night makes me (or anyone) a member of PETA, sign me up. That's really all this law does.[/quote]

What the law does is focus attention on nitpicking the way people take care of their pets, all the way down to mandating what kind of water bowls they have. Instead of trying to create an even bigger nanny government, they should be trying to figure out ways to solve some real problems that involve real human beings...you know, the homeless ones who live on the street, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top