I tend to agree with Philip, who has political experience. I don't know how this upcoming election might affect Supervisors' receptivity to a ban. But when times are tough, people tend to be less concerned about the welfare of other creatures, and politicians may be less willing to stick their necks out. Proposition 2 was passed in a more optimistic and generous climate than we are in today. 

And I agree with Marcy regarding the importance of showing the Supes there is broad public concern, which, frankly will require more education. 

To ordinary citizens, what is being proposed seems outrageous and absurd — as Rick French put it, a law prohibiting pet stores from selling pets. It's no surprise the SF Chronicle ridiculed the idea of a ban, nor that pet sellers and breeders were able to gather thousands of petition signatures in opposition. Their arguments are intuitive, common-sense, persuasive. Pet stores are good, ethical, neighborhood businesses. The owners and employees love birds. They have great experience and knowledge, which they share with their customers. They are in fact doing the education and guidance needed to ensure a happy relationship between bird and human. 

Since we are asking for a radical change, overturning a model of pet acquisition respected for generations (really for hundreds if not thousands of years), the burden of proof initially is ours.  We have plenty of evidence proving both the magnitude of the problems and their severity (mistreatment and suffering of animals). But the public doesn't know it yet. There are stories appearing in books and magazines, papers, on network TV and the Web, but they're isolated and haven't fully sunk in. I believe they will — people will understand, as they've understood the cruelty of battery cages and puppy mills; but there needs to be more education to overcome people's naïve observations and these common-sense arguments. 

Another set of strategic questions: Do we even have potential allies on the Board? I have heard no names mentioned. How much weight does a recommendation from ACWC carry? There will be a lot of weight coming from the other side. Can we get further evidence, arguments, lobbying to the Supes? How much can THEY be educated? and how fast? What is the time line under which we must get something passed once something is recommended? 

It's a hard choice. Animals continue to suffer as we delay. But if we have not yet created the groundswell of public support (which doesn't mean a majority, but something significant beyond our own community) nor made allies on the Board, it might be better to hold back awhile to allow for that education to take place and build a larger coalition. Obviously, any delay also will allow sellers and breeders to ramp up their lobbying and PR, but ironically that will be to our advantage, since they will be bringing the issues to public attention. Then, our arguments only will become stronger as the truth comes out, as it must. I'm in this for the big prize, even if it means holding off pushing a City ban right now. 

I'm skeptical of a trial SPARC program. The pet stores oppose it and would resist it. Their hostility plus the initial practical problems of setting it up likely would mean that many people's experiences during the trial period would be frustrating, and the opposition to anything stronger (or even continuing SPARC) would increase and  become more entrenched. 

In which case, what happens tonight? How can the issue be kept alive and strong without either overplaying our hand or looking weak? 

Jonathan