Yes, November elections are arriving but the real
question is whether the voters of San Francisco
will support the ban. I don't think the national
political party affiliated with the supervisors
cares about a retail pet sale ban. If the voters
will consider a ban, then the supervisors will.
Marcy Schaaf has said that the real work will be
persuading the board that voters want this. That
is going to be the big project with petitions,
letters and media work.
From: media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org
[mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On
Behalf Of Elizabeth Y
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:31 PM
To: Mickaboo media advisor team
Subject: [Media-advisors] FW: Some thoughts on
banning pet sales from Philip
Thoughts?
_____
From: Philip Gerrie
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:32 PM
To: Elizabeth Young
Cc: Marcy ; Kim Flaherty
; Pam Hemphill
; Rose Harris
; Elliot M. Katz DVM
; Sally Stephens
; Kat.Brown@sfgov.org;
jchick73@yahoo.com; Mira Tweti
; Teresa Murphy
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on banning pet sales
from Philip
A last minute heads up! Talks with ACC today
pointed out an over looked important
consideration. Political timing. This is crystal
ball gazing but consider this; this is an
important issue that conservatives will love to
make fun of. "Looney San Francisco" What
progressive Supervisor would risk taking it up
three months before an election? What Supervisors
would vote for it now?? There will be 5 new
Supervisors in after November. Remember how the
democrats blamed Newsom in 2004 advocating for gay
marriage? Some attributed democratic losses
linking that issue with democrats in general.
After the election would be a time to get it
through.
I feel that steam roller energy for coming out
an advocating for a ban. But if it doesn't go well
with the Sups now the whole effort will be for
naught. Part of our strategy must be proper timing
for the best possible outcome. Even if the Sups
passed it, they would need a veto proof number to
over ride a possible mayoral veto.
There is interest in adopting Teresa's SPARC
concept for the interim period. Giving it a try.
In the three years I've been on the ACWC I have
grown more passionate about animal issues as I've
learned more about the food and pet industrial
complex. But I also want to actually help the
animals. Let's wait for pushing for a ban until
after the election.
Thoughts? Comments?
Philip
On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Elizabeth Young
wrote:
a correction and another thought-
CORRECTION:
Moratorium: It also occured to me that a
moratorium on pet sales until there are more
qualified potential adopters waiting in line to
adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there
are surrenders might be a solution (removes the
RESTRICTION when the cruelty stops).
ANOTHER THOUGHT:
What if it was illegal to BUY a pet in SF? This
is crazy and unworkable for a whole bunch of
reasons but what if pet stores had to have
prominent signage in their stores that said buying
a pet was illegal in SF because there is a pet
overpopulation problem and it condemned innocent
animals to homelessness and euthanasia as surplus
and directed them to adopt from rescues and
shelters instead. Would they still choose to
sell? Would people still choose to buy? Most
likely (and sadly) Yes & Yes.
P.S. I'm not having any second thoughts or doubts,
just thinking out loud.
e
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Elizabeth Young
wrote:
Moratorium: It also occured to me that a
moratorium on pet sales until there are more
qualified potential adopters waiting in line to
adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there
are surrenders might be a solution (removes the
punishment when the cruelty stops).
--
Elizabeth
Until they all have homes, don't buy, don't breed-
adopt.
www.RescueReport.org
www.MickaCoo.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0
