[Media-advisors] Reactions to SFACWC proposal

I've been monitoring response to the Matier-Ross piece on the ACWC proposal and am most struck not by the overwhelming negativity of it, nor even its highly personal nature (can you say "Lynch Mob"?), but how little of it has to do really with the proposal itself. Much seems to be coming from people who are broadly and vocally anti-progressive, anti-government, and, I'm sorry, often bigots ("bigotry" = ignorant hatred). Many of the 350 postings I've read show complete ignorance of the facts of (1) the proposal, (2) the conrete situation it seeks to address, and (3) the structure of SF city government, as well as a screamingly visceral hatred of San Francisco and its culture. Mostly they seem to be using this proposal as a club to mock and beat up on the city and on progressives. There are a few legitimate points they have raised. I fear. e.g., the inclusion of fish (with which I agree morally) is too counterintuitive for many people to understand, and it offers an easy way to target the entire proposal. I notice the near absence of criticism of the proposed ordinance as applied to any other animals besides fish. Perhaps we can use that to our advantage down the road. At any rate I'm waiting for the steam to dissipate a bit before responding. But we already have put out a press release on this, so we need to be prepared. Supposedly there was a story on the Channel 2 news last night. I don't have a TV. Did anyone see it? If you have a link, could you share it? I wrote a serious letter to Channel 2 about their slanted coverage and inaccurate, inflammatory use of language last year. If they did the same stuff again this year, they're going to get a serious phone call. Jonathan -----Original Message-----

From: Jonathan Harris Sent: Jun 15, 2011 7:54 AM To: Mickaboo media advisor team Subject: Find some old clothing; splattering mud to follow soon.

... and ... They're off!! (57 comments so far)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2011/06/14/BA661JTO52.D...

SF Animal Control Commission seeks ban on goldfish Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnist Wednesday, June 15, 2011 

San Francisco's ever-active Animal Control and Welfare Commission has renewed its push for a pet sale ban in the city - only this time, it even covers goldfish.

The idea is to put the squeeze on puppy and kitten mills that supply pet stores, and to discourage "impulse buys" of hamsters and other small pets that often wind up being dumped at shelters.

But goldfish, guppies and tropical fish?

"Most fish in aquariums are either mass bred" under inhumane conditions "or taken from the wild," commission member Philip Gerrie said. That leads to "devastation of tropical fish from places like Southeast Asia," he said.

The proposed ban, which the commission just adopted after a year of study, was expanded to cover animal breeders as well as pet stores. As you might expect, it has local merchants like Ocean Aquarium owner Justin Hau dumbfounded.

"The city is taking more and more control," Hau said. "They are very stupid."

Commission President Sally Stephens, who opposed the ban because it would include small animal-breeding operations, says it's up to the Board of Supervisors to make the final call.

"All this is, is a recommendation," Stephens said.

Sometimes the supes act on the commission's recommendations, such as when they approved a ban on declawing cats. And sometimes they don't, such as when the animal panel suggested introducing birth control pills into birdseed to solve the city's pigeon problem.

Supervisor Eric Mar, who introduced a measure Tuesday to keep big pet store chains out of the Richmond District, was noncommittal about the commission's latest proposal, saying only that the board needed to "look carefully."

On the other hand, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd wasted no time predicting that "this is another Animal Welfare idea that will end up in the dustbin of history and go absolutely nowhere."