Thoughts?

From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:32 PM
To: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings@gmail.com>
Cc: Marcy <SaveABunny@aol.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty@pacbell.net>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>; Rose Harris <harris.rose@att.net>; Elliot M. Katz DVM <emk@idausa.org>; Sally Stephens <stephensfw@mindspring.com>; Kat.Brown@sfgov.org; jchick73@yahoo.com; Mira Tweti <miratweti@parrotpress.net>; Teresa Murphy <teresa@cavyspirit.com>
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 <adoptkings@gmail.com> 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