The Small Business Commission has been contacted by a small business bird
retailer who requested that we become involved in the discussion over
prohibiting the sales of animals in San Francisco. The Legislation and
Policy Committee has requested an information only presentation by the pet
store owner at its July 26 meeting and we will welcome a presentation by a
representative of your department and/or the Commission of Animal Control
and Welfare. These presentations are for information only and will allow
the Committee to be better informed on this issue. We are asking that
presentations be limited to 7-10 minutes in length. No action will be
taken by the Committee at this time.

The meeting will be held on Monday, July 26 from 5:00-7:00pm at City Hall
in room 400. This will be the second item on the calendar, though the
first item may take some time. Unfortunately, we cannot make a prediction
on what time it will be called, other than our intent is to stay within the
scheduled meeting time. Information that the Committee hopes to receive
from your department includes background on the proposal, reasoning behind
amendments (our understanding is that it began as prohibiting the sale of
cats and dogs,) along with a timeline.

If a representative of your team is able to make a presentation, please put
them in contact with me and I can work with them on any final arrangements
or logistics.

Regards,

Chris

Chris Schulman
Senior Policy Analyst / Commission Secretary
Office of Small Business
City Hall, Room 110
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: 415.554-6408
Fax: 415.558-7844

On Jul 19, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Philip Gerrie wrote:

Rebecca intends to talk, one to one, with the Mayor soon so he can understand what the concerns and issues are. That should help.

Pam and I met with 11 of the twelve Supervisor's aides or interns today. Many Supervisors, we were told, care a lot about animals, witness the recent Meatless Monday resolution, first passed in SF and taken up in cities all over the world. That all seemed open to what we would be proposing. Several asked if we had a sponsor yet, needing at least one Supervisor to actually take it on. We don't and won't until we vote on something. Several had had conversations already with Rebecca. All in all, better than we had hoped after having been flooded, in some cases, with PIJAC and NAIA inspired e-mails. http://www.pijac.org/petinformation/breakingnews.asp and http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=15168701&type=CU.

The aides suggested being specific to what we propose versus just "pets" for instance. I am unclear of whether to propose banning all birds or just of the parrot species along the lines of HSUS. Another concern was when should go into effect. Immediately for dogs and cats. 3-6 months for 'smalls' and ?? (three years) more? less?for the birds. Thoughts?

PIJAC is interesting in that they oppose anything and everything having to do with legislating selling animals. They oppose banning a sale of pythons and constrictors as they take over the Everglades. Any further comments or reflections Pam?

Loose lips sink ships, so be wary of forwarding this around. Philip

On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:49 PM, LDY wrote:

Politics make me crazy. Such a shame that the Director of ACC can't just tell the public what's right and best for the animals. This is her job??? We live in such a sad world.
L-Danyielle

--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Elizabeth Young <adoptkings@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: working group?
To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
Cc: harris.rose@att.net, "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty@pacbell.net>
Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 10:26 AM

Even if ACC is not in a position to speak publicly for the ban, I think now is a really opportune time for them to express their concerns about the plight of shelter pets- the numbers, the need for volunteers, for donations (for themselves and the rescues that support the animals- Mickaboo's expenses are going ever higher and we're struggling!), for spaying and neutering, for thinking about shelter pets..

It seems like they could speak to the problems on the animals' behalf even if not committing themselves to the ban as a solution.

e

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie@gmail.com> wrote:
  ACC is supportive. Rebecca suggested that Supervisors can call her and she'll tell them her position. Since she's a mayoral appointee, and the mayor isn't sure where he stands currently on this, she can't go public public but more behind the scenes at the moment. Pam was at the same meeting with Rebecca and perhaps confirm what I heard?

Philip

On Jul 18, 2010, at 11:31 AM, LDY wrote:

Yes, ACC's verbal input is vital. They were very instrumental in getting a cat declawing ban passed in SF last Winter. How can we get them to speak out? Actually I don't know how much they support this proposal, I would hope all of it.
L-Danyielle

--- On Sun, 7/18/10, Elizabeth Y <adoptkings@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Elizabeth Y <adoptkings@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: working group?
To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie@gmail.com>, harris.rose@att.net
Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty@pacbell.net>
Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 9:14 AM

A thought/question-

I know that SFACC really appreciates all that the rescue organizations do to keep animals out of the shelter; to help care for, socialize and ease their time while in the shelter; and to save them from being euthanized when their time is up.

I'm wondering what they have to say about all this and think their voices have particular importance in this discussion.

I think that SFACC could generate considerable support for their own needs, for adopting rather than buying/breeding, and for the ban by speaking up more right now.

Everybody in the SF "pet world" has an incredible opportunity to be heard right now- this story is nationwide- and I think the rescue folks can use this to help rescue animals no matter what happens with this ban.

I'm happy to share this with SFACC leadership directly if that would be a more appropriate approach.

Thanks,
Elizabeth

From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:31 PM
To: harris.rose@att.net
Cc: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings@gmail.com>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: working group?

I'm planning to talk with Supervisors or, more likely, their aides, Monday. i'll have a better sense of what to do after that I hope.

Philip

On Jul 17, 2010, at 9:31 AM, LDY wrote:

I'm interested in helping. What would it involve? Maybe we have to meet to figure that out?
L-Danyielle

--- On Fri, 7/16/10, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
Subject: working group?
To: "Elizabeth Young" <adoptkings@gmail.com>
Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty@pacbell.net>, "Rose Harris" <harris.rose@att.net>
Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 10:25 PM

Hi Elizabeth et al, ( In lists of persons, et al. (an abbreviation of et alii, meaning "and others"))

  I think it would be good to identify who wants to be active in making this ban happen. Once identified, meet to strategize, etc before the next ACWC meeting. I can only represent myself and not speak for the Commission. We could do much of it via e-mail. I plan to be going to City Hall monday to visit all the Supervisors about this as they have been bombarded by those against the ban. It looks like PIJAC is a driving force. A David & Goliath scenario? The minutes from the last meeting will be helpful. They will only be available, though, when posted on the ACWC website. Pam, please let me know if you think I am overstepping in any way doing this.

Thank you, Philip



--
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