1. Call to order and Roll Call
5:35 PM
Present Commissioners; Philip Gerrie, Jack Aldridge DVM, Andrea Brooks, Sally Stephens, Pam Hemphill, Susanna Russo, Lisa Wayne – Rec & Park, Rebecca Katz – ACC.
2. General Public Comment
Richard Fong – Attended a recent Public Housing Authority meeting. One topic was appendix C having to do with service and companion animals. Discussion was on possible restrictions on what animals would be allowed. No restrictions on service animals. Possible restrictions on companion dogs by size not to exceed 25 lbs. From the current 50 lbs. Issues were tabled however. Supports any efforts to lessen surrenders to ACC from the Public Housing sector.
Public comment closed
3. Approval of Draft Minutes for May 12, 2011
No Commission comment
No public comment
Minutes approved unanimously .
4. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks
A) Update on Rules Committee hearing to fill expiring Commission appointments
Comr. Stephens – Rules Committee met on June 2, 2011. They voted to reappoint Comrs. Gerrie, Hemphill, and myself. Comr. Brooks decided to not reapply. Ryan Young was voted to fill her seat. The full Board will vote on June 14th to approve the recommendations. At that point the new terms will begin.
No public comment
5. Old Business
Update to develop a database of animal abusers that could be accessed by shelters and rescues to help screen them from adopting animals.
Comr. Brooks – Is part of a group working on this issue. Currently working on cost to put together this database. Will be approaching Supervisors with ball park figures of what it will entail. Hope to get funding from the City but may also need outside funding. Contacting people with similar programs in other cities to see what is working and what are the challenges. Once more data is
gathered, it will be presented at this Commission.
No public comment
6. New Business
A) Discussion and possible action to recommend to the Board that they pass an ordinance requiring the humane acquisition of pets in SF. Pets would include dogs, cats, birds, small animals, reptiles , amphibians and aquarium fish. Pets can be acquired through humane sources such as rescues, shelters, adoption events, and small breeders.
Comr. Gerrie – We held hearings on this topic last year. I had originally proposed a ban on just the retail sale of dogs & cats in SF. West Hollywood and South Lake Tahoe had already passed a ban. Dogs and cats bred for the pet trade often come from deplorable conditions. As we learned more, we decided to expand to include other types of pets. The question was which animals to include and why. We had one credible alternative proposed by Teresa Murphy. We postponed further consideration of the topic to give her option time. Her living situation changed and she wasn’t able to devote the time needed to implement her plan she called ‘Pet Ready’. In her proposal, potential buyers would first take a short course about the animal they wanted to purchase and receive a certificate when the course was completed to be ‘Pet Ready’. They could then take that certificate to the pet store that agreed to only sell to those with that certificate thereby hopefully educating the consumer and reducing impulse buying.
The pet industry’s breeders and pet shops say there is a right to own a pet. The law says that animals are legally property and there is no right to own property. The pet industry fuels the demand for companion animals resulting in an overpopulation crisis. Many types of animals, acquired as pets, are not cared for properly eventually dying only to be replaced by another.
I have heard many arguments against a ban of selling pets in pet stores. Two main points, in my opinion, override all those arguments. The production of animals is for human benefit alone. The industry creates suffering on a scale only second to our farm animal industry. It fuels an international black market of wild-caught birds, amphibians and reptiles. The pet industry is a huge profit driven industry. There is nothing wrong with profits but it is wrong to do so at the suffering of animals. Our Commission is the Animal Control and Welfare Commission. Humane Acquisition of animals will affect their welfare as well as control their numbers available for adoption. Anything short of this proposal will not benefit the animals.
The Pet Industries lobbying group PIJAC, recently listed our proposal on their website for members to write in and oppose. I noticed that PIJAC has a similar positions on other legislation, trying to benefit animals, which is “PIJAC strongly supports the right of pet owners to have options as to where they obtain their animals based on the pet owner’s individual circumstances, needs, and preferences. Pet stores provide healthy, responsibly raised pets to the public and should be an option in choosing a companion animal. Discriminatory bans against the sale of animals by pet stores are poor public policy and are harmful to pets and pet owners. Such bans do not benefit animals or the pet-owning public.” Other cities proposing bans are listed. I am amused to be on their radar.
Comr. Hemphill – Can you clarify the exclusion of live animals for food for pets? Which animals and which pets?
Comr. Gerrie – Usually this is live mice for snakes. However I don’t see the difference between people buying live animals for food and people buying live animals to feed to their pets. This is a separate category to me. All parts of this proposal are open for discussion.
Comr. Hemphill – Yes it is usually mice or rats for snakes. At the Science Academy they feed their reptiles frozen pre-killed creatures. I consulted three books on pet snakes which also advised feeding frozen rodents. Feeding live rodents can result in the rodent scratching and hurting the snake. A rodent can be stuck in the box with the snake for a day or two so killing the rodent in advance is more humane.
Comr. Gerrie – I have owned snakes for several years and bought live rodents to feed them. Common practice is to knock them out before feeding them to the snake.
Comr. Hemphill – I move that live animals as feeders not be an exclusion.
Comr. Russo – I support that move. I was not in favor of having live animals as feeders as an exclusion. Would also like to omit # 3, small breeders, as a way to acquire pets.
Comr. Stephens – You are suggesting to remove # 3? Can you explain why?
Comr. Russo – This is an issue about adopting animals rather than buying them from a pet store. Animals should not be purchased from a breeder nor from a pet store. It is not consistent of the intent of this ordinance.
Comr. Brooks – There is a proposal to move to adopt what is on the agenda and another proposal to remove # 3 and the exclusion of live feeders.
Comr. Stephens – Uncomfortable with supporting this proposal removing #3, small breeders. It depends on how small breeders are defined. Some breeders only breed their dogs once or twice in its lifetime. In the future we could look at permitting small breeders to make sure breeding was done well and not just for commercial benefit. People want a specific behavior of a particular breed and a rescue animal may not fit their need. Would not support removing small breeders.
Comr. Hemphill – ‘Small’ is not well defined at all. Is it one person? One family? One dog in one house? Local puppy-mills seem possible.
Comr. Stephens – A mill situation is where breeding is done repeatedly.
Comr. Hemphill - Is that more than one litter a year?
Comr. Stephens – That is why that is a separate issue and a permit would be required for anyone that wants to breed. It is important to allow for responsible breeding that is not for economic benefit.
Comr. Hemphill – People with special breeds can make more money.
Comr. Stephens – That is not their sole motivation. They may have a show dog or a trait that they want to continue and not motivated by money. To say that no one can get a dog or cat except through a rescue or shelter is unrealistic and not needed. To make sure that people are not getting their dogs from mills is what this is about. We don’t need to do that in this item.
Comr. Gerrie – This is just a proposal. We don’t need to worry about these details. It is a concept and these concerns will be worked out to allow for humanely bred animals. Small breeders is too large of an umbrella and it will need language to be more specific. Focus on the big picture of humane pet acquisition.
Comr. Hemphill – It is problematic that it is so vague. Production could just be changed to local homes.
Comr. Brooks –Isn’t there a limit as to how many animals you can have in your home?
Comr. Stephens – There is a limit of 4. Three of any one species.
Comr. Katz – Three animals over the age of six months.
Comr. Stephens – So there is nothing to prevent one from having a litter of puppies as long as they are adopted out?
Comr. Aldridge – Considering pragmatics of what is possible with this legislation. One is what is possible to get passed by the Board. This proposal may be great in an ideal world but might be too far over the line for the Board to approve. If one part is this is unenforceable that it can be dropped but worry if there are too many things that are unenforceable it won’t be taken seriously. The other area of concern is ramifications which are theoretical and can’t be proven. Possible results are impossible to know. One might look at other cities to see results. Even then that data is open to interpretation and speculation. One theory is if people can’t get animals in SF they’ll get them somewhere else. If one wants a particular breed that is not available in SF then it is easy to go to another county buy the animal and bring it back. A growing concern to pet acquisition is on line purchases. This proposal does not touch on that. I see it everyday at the SPCA. Ramification of making it too restrictive will result in fueling acquiring pets through online purchasing. A ban on the acquisition side would be another proposal.
Comr. Gerrie – On the back of the fact sheet the question of going out of the City is raised with the response. We can get bogged down on ways around this but if we do that we won’t do anything. We should try to do something to bring awareness of this industry. It is impossible to know who does what. That is not our concern. Our concern is this a humane thing to do which is our function on this Commission.
Comr. Aldridge – The fact sheet summarizes well the arguments against this proposal and the refuting replies. Would like to believe the replies are true but still have some doubts.
Comr. Hemphill – Would you suggest any modifications? Or, was there something specific that triggered your comments?
Comr. Aldridge – No, just expressing my theoretical ruminations about not being in favor of legislative approaches to problems solved by bans. Have a Libertarian streak. Support making these things happen but have trouble with government making laws to enforce it. I see the ramifications of a pet ban in SF being very desirable. Has spent my whole life working for the welfare of animals. Still troubled by government banning things like this.
Comr. Brooks – Have heard from others with similar views to Comr. Aldridge about government getting involved but personally supports it because of the humane culture we are trying to promote. In the past, we have gotten bogged down in the details in how best to do that. I am glad to see this topic on the agenda. Look forward to hearing from the public before talking further.
Comr. Stephens – This issue was originally brought up due to the puppy mills. Secondly, out of the no-kill discussions we held for two years, was the problem with the small animals. Recently, ACC had a hoarding situation and they received 300 rats. In the no-kill discussions we discussed how to reduce the numbers of smalls that wind up at ACC. A concern, especially for the smalls, is the impulse buying. Problems soon arise when the small animal requires more care than was thought. It is often then discarded, hopefully to ACC, but often just released into the wild thinking it will be OK only to become a wild animal’s dinner. That was the rational to expand it out to include the smalls. We don’t want to forget the smalls in this recommendation.
6A) Public Comment
Jamie Yorck – Does the ban include the 2,000 dogs and cats imported from the Central Valley to the SPCA? This proposal goes way too far. Measures should happen incrementally. The three small pet stores in SF do not sell to people on impulse. As a former pet store owner, I never bought from a mill but from local breeders. This is a big mistake.
Dwight Smith – Urge Commission to adopt the proposal. These animals become just products produced in quasi-industrial conditions only to suffer an early death when relinquished to shelters. More animals are being produced for sale while others are being killed. The proposal is a rational response to this problem. Adoption treats the animal as an individual. Buying and selling an animal treats it as an object.
Dr. Elliot Katz – president IDA - Supports statement by previous speaker. When animals are treated as commodities they suffer. Commission shouldn’t worry about the details. The Board will work on it if they feel it is too extreme. This is a worthwhile proposal and something SF should be proud of.
John Wilson – This proposal is a minority view. This is an attempt to eliminate the retail pet trade. This will take the bird and dog trade and award it to your friends in the rescue business. This is a power grab, imposing your view of what is appropriate. Intend to go to conventions in SF hotels and tell them SF is anti-pet. Anyone in the pet trade should boycott SF. This will be the end of every small pet store in SF. PETCO will do fine without pets.
Kelly – Manager of reptiles Animal Connection – Hates that animals suffer in the pet trade. Invites everyone to come visit her store. All the reptiles have clean enclosures and enrichment. Proposal will be a disaster for all the animals. Does not see her animals as commodities. The tenets of adoption are lived at the Animal Connection. I spend a lot of time with customers.
Monica Engebretson – Born Free USA – Have seen the same thing when visiting many pet stores in several states as well as Global Exotics in Texas who supply reptiles and other exotics to chain pet stores. Most common problem is when an animal gets sick the cost of veterinary care exceeds their retail value creating conflict of what to do in a retail situation. Helped write CA State laws to improve how animals are treated in pet stores. Those laws cannot address the source of those animals and the over-population issue. Also works with bird rescue groups. Fewer birds may enter shelters but the problem with birds is that there are fewer homes qualified to care for parrots. Supports the proposal and to make sure to include birds.
Ulka Agarwal – Supports proposition. Sometimes it takes leadership to create change. Cannot wait for the majority to feel the same way as the Commission. This is about the animals. Not us nor our rights. Our own desires should not trump the welfare of animals. There was a concern expressed about being uncomfortable with government and legislation. But these are sentient beings who cannot speak for themselves so we sometimes must pass legislation for them because they cannot speak for themselves. I heard exceptions talked about for feeder animals and small breeders. See this as an effort in harm reduction. It may not be perfect but we can hopefully get something. It’s a good place to start.
Laurie Routhier – SPCA spokesperson – Supports adoption as the best way to acquire animals. Animals bred in mills should not be available for purchase in SF. SPCA supports the spirit of the ban but advise to be judicious to avoid unintended consequences. Preventing retail sale of animals other than dogs and cats may turn people to online sales perpetuating the mills. Suggest the Commission define the goals of the ban then develop a proposal that addresses those goals. Legislation restricting sourcing to non-mill animals will direct people to rescues and shelters. It may be difficult to enforce but sourcing legislation can be more effective.
Linda Fisher – Captive Bird Campaign Director IDA – Has been doing avian rescue and addressing issues of avian cruelty since 1989. Has investigated over 2000 avian cruelty cases across the nation this year. People and pet stores that take good care of their birds are the exception. Bans like this will save lives and end horrific suffering. Object to Comr. Aldridge calling banning animals ‘things’. Animals are not things. They are sentient beings who feel pain and get lonely in cages. Have been working with a large chain pet store for 5 years. They are realizing selling pets does not work and is inhumane. Several of the stores they own have stopped selling live animals. A survey of animal sanctuaries across the nation shows that their animals come from impulse buying.
Kim Flaherty – Veterinary technician/ Mickaboo volunteer – Works at hospital that specializes in birds and small exotic animals. Have witnessed the neglect and disposal of many animals by their guardians who had no idea what their pets required in terms of a healthy diet, appropriate husbandry, or social needs. When their pets became sick, were not able to pay for expensive veterinary care. People don’t consider that their $20 budgie may require $100’s of dollars of vet care when they become sick. Often birds are abandoned at the vet due to high vet bills and hopefully they make it to a rescue group. Pet stores do not make sure a customer has the knowledge, means, and time for their animal. It is irresponsible for breeders to continue to breed more animals while animals are being euthanized in shelters. Birds and other small animals are not just another commodity on a shelf to be bought and sold. As long as animals wind up in shelters and rescues take the over flow, it is unconscionable that we try and take every step possible to minimize the problem. The humane acquisition of pets proposal is the right thing to do for SF or for any city take in response to this crisis.
Jennifer Grafelman – Manager Animal connection – Have offered rescues to come and use facilities to adopt their animals. Have also invited you on the Commission. Have not received a reply. Reads from a 1940’s etiquette book about how taking care of a pet, gently and lovingly and keeping their pet well fed, clean and happy has learned a basic rule of descent conduct to human beings as well. At the Animal Connection we support and help everyone that buys an animal.
Elizabeth Young – volunteer ACC, SPCA, Mickaboo, and Mickacoo – Thanks Commission for their work behind this proposal to make visible what it invisible. City is full of homeless pets that need to be adopted. They deserve homes. New animals should not be put on sale when existing animals do not have homes. It is not easy righting wrongs. But it is valuable. Commends Commission. This proposal is needed.
Rosalind Lord – Chairperson Animal Advocacy of SF Green Party – Supports proposal. Doesn’t see how not selling pets will threaten pet stores. They can still sell supplies.
Rick French – Not going to rehash issues. The Commission knows all the arguments but won’t meet in the middle. Including tropical fish is ridiculous. There is no importation of birds. Your minds are set. Urge Commission to vote to do it and send the recommendation to the Supervisors.
Bird owner – Obtained a bird from the Animal Company. Was told honest facts about her bird. That it had been surrendered to the Animal Company due to his aggression. The Animal Company does not treat animals as products. They care about their animals. I didn’t pay for my bird. I was given a lot of education about birds and the one I adopted in particular. They get fresh food every day for their birds. Used to have a snake who only would eat warm mice. Not frozen.
John Ito – Owner Animal Connection – Everyone in this room wants the best for the animals. Does not believe the cause of animal surrenders is the sale from pet stores. Cause of the problem is irresponsible pet ownership. Education is very important at the Animal Connection. We tell people over and over what to do. We give them the care sheets. We tell the bad side of what could happen but can’t control the buyer. Too many people give up their animals. People don’t accept taking on the care of an animal for its whole lifetime. That culture needs to change so people don’t throw away pets. You don’t get rid of a pet, you care for it.
Renee – Everyone here cares about the animals. Anyone that neglects animals is not here. The independent pet stores in SF care about their animals. People that really want animals will find other ways to get them.
Corey Evans – Urges a vote tonight. That would be a public benefit. The question is not whether any businesses in SF are currently engaged in bad behavior. When a city passes an ordinance or regulation it also prevents possible bad behavior in the future. It prevents bad businesses coming in. You don’t have to wait for bad actions to occur before considering preventive action. If you see a possible problem a city can pass a law to preempt it from occurring.
Richard Fong – Have heard testimony about this proposal being a spokesperson for the animals. A ban would not be in the best interest of small pet stores but may be in the best interest to have a permit to sell. Will this be a permit issue or a mandate? Have become persuaded by the issue for the animals.
Public comment closed
Comr. Gerrie – Before putting this on the agenda Ryan and I met with the Supervisors giving them the fact sheet. We felt supported and encouraged by their responses. What we are proposing tonight was after giving them a heads up first. Troubled by the impact to small pet stores. This proposal does not distinguish between large box and the smaller stores. We haven’t talked about grandfathering in existing pet stores. We should talk about including small pet stores and about grandfathering and make a decision about that. I heard comments about customers being told of the commitment to owning a pet. I was comparing that to a marriage in which initial commitments to a lifetime together fade after a few years. We have the best intentions up front but keeping those commitments for the animal’s life is another question.
Comr. Hemphill – How many fish stores are in SF?
Comr. Gerrie – About 10. Wanted to mention that Hawaii is developing an ordinance regulating aquarium fish by developing a “white list” being specific as to where aquarium fish come from. What we are proposing is just draft.
Comr. Hemphill – A law against the sale of dogs and cats is good to have on the books. Not a lot of dogs are being sold now. Small animals are also good to not sell. They don’t affect profits a lot. Have trouble with newly minted animals whether birds or dogs coming from breeders when we have so many animals being euthanized.
Comr. Brooks – How we deal with issues that are more challenging such as dealing with chain stores versus the smaller stores balancing against not getting bogged down in details. One solution was with the plastic bag ban which exempted smaller stores that had below a certain $ volume. Which might be a way to carve out exemptions for certain sized stores.
Comr. Gerrie – The plastic bag ban was for stores that had over a million dollars in sales.
Comr. Brooks – Had there been more discussion before this meeting about the grandfathering?
Comr. Gerrie – No. We would need to consider different times to grandfather for different animals. Small animals would need less time than for birds.
Comr. Stephens – Would what would go to the Board would be the first paragraph of the agenda item with possible taking out the live-animals-for-food exemption? Would we also want to include carve outs addressing chain stores? A concern was large stores not having the history of care that the small stores have had. Those are the ones people are most concerned about. Large stores have had animal abuse allegations and lawsuits brought against them. Another angle is sourcing legislation. Are you proposing to also take different ways to look at the issue to the Board?
Comr. Gerrie – Yes. I plan to go back to the Supervisors to seek a sponsor and plan to continue working with the sponsor and the City Attorney.
Comr. Stephens – It would be a good idea to give them some alternative ideas.
Comr. Hemphill – There are a lot of alternatives of phasing out pet sales for small businesses and big stores. We should perhaps give the proposal to them with more firm recommendations.
Comr. Aldridge – If a Supervisor takes up this issue, would they want to work with one or more members of our Commission and the general public to formulate something that would pass? Or, would they want a package handed to them?
Comr. Brooks – Somewhere in between. On the zoo ordinance, a couple of years ago, we did prepare a package as well as work with the Supervisors after we passed the recommendation. We had three tenets that came out of the Commission as well as supporting data from that legislation was created with the legislative aides. We didn’t pass the legislation nor even a draft of it.
Comr. Stephens – We gave them the three ideas of what we thought should be done. We could say that we would like certain items included. The Supervisors, some of us, City attorney, the public, could all help.
Comr. Gerrie – We struggle in this Commission with how much detail do we propose. We are supposed to make recommendations. Each issue has various degrees of detail. There is no right answer to that. It is very subjective. Each Supervisor may also have their own style of being open to working with us.
Comr. Hemphill - This is a much more complex issue than declawing cats or opposing battery caged-eggs. We would need to detail the possibilities. It would be time consuming to work it out. We need to help them.
Comr. Aldridge – Is this proposal as written in the minutes, complete enough to send to the Board?
Comr. Hemphill – It is not detailed enough. We don’t address all the possibilities. We could send it but would be afraid it might be rejected for not enough detail.
Comr. Gerrie – Some members of the public wanted this to be voted on tonight and go the Sups. I don’t think there are that many details to work out.
Comr. Russo – Would like to vote on it. This wasn’t the final version I had expected. I was not expecting the exemption for live animals purchased as food and allowing an exemption for direct sale from small breeders. The response from the Supervisors to the fact sheet was positive. It is not incumbent on us to answer every objection or every detail. This is a concept which is to adopt rather than sell. This is a message from San Francisco to the State and the Country that it is not right to be buying animals when so many are being killed in the shelters.
Comr. Stephens – We could do what the Board does. Consider and vote on each amendment separately.
Comr. Brooks – If an exemption is made for small pet stores for the short or long term would like it that they can only sell animals that are spayed or neutered.
Comr. Stephens – Possible carve-outs we’ve talked about are; chain stores only, or stores of a certain size, sourcing legislation, selling only spay/neutered animals, an exemption for stores that sell only one species such as only birds or only fish, phasing out pet stores, prohibiting new stores.
Comr. Hemphill – They would need to decide if a pet store is sold while still grandfathered, how would that work?
Comr. Stephens – We would give them a summary of our discussions of possible exemptions to include or not.
Comr. Hemphill – Also possibly licensing breeders or defining what a small breeder is.
Comr. Gerrie – We should vote on this with the summary of our discussions or amendments.
Comr. Brooks – Make a motion that we vote on it as written in 6 A of the agenda with the two amendments that Comr. Russo mentioned as well as the suggestions we have discussed. Comr. Russo had wanted removal of the item in brackets about live animals as feeders exempted as well as item #3 - direct sale from small breeders being allowed.
Seconded by Comr. Russo
Comr. Stephens – If you want to discuss these things separately you have to vote against this motion. Suggestions mentioned by Comr. Brooks are; adding carve-outs, chain stores, spay/neuter, sourcing, single family, grandfathering, phase out over years, no new pet stores, what is a small breeder, these would be added in the report we sent to the Board.
Vote 5 ayes; Comrs. Gerrie, Page, Brooks, Hemphill, and Russo.
2 nays; Comrs. Aldridge, and Stephens
Comr. Stephens – Only voted ‘no’ because the proposal we are voting on bans small breeders. Supported everything else.
7. General Public Comment
John Ito – Question whether the motion just passed says animals cannot be acquired from pet stores. The motion just says animals can only be obtained in the ways mentioned. It doesn’t say anything about banning pet stores. What was passed is illogical.
Public Comment closed
8 & 9 Calendar items and task allotments – none
No public comment
Adjournment 7:30 PM
Respectfully submitted by Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary.
