Quote Originally Posted by Skiploder View Post
Read the article Jim. The agenda for SF isn't targeted at reptiles - it has to do with the moon bat view of selling pets in pet stores bad/ public paying for transgender surgeries good. The ideaology behind anti-reptile legislation is 180 degrees from what the hemp sweater, Gandalf bong smoking, patchoulie wearing moon battus americanus san franciscus are trying to achieve.

SF has no pet stores worth mentioning. Parking sucks, commercial lease rates are sky high and no one but SF natives would deal with the horrendous traffic, non-existant parking and urinating winos on the streets to go into the City to buy anything when better alternatives ring the Bay.

This is a law that will affect very few people except those that will have to take BART into the East Bay to buy their gerbils, hairless cats and rat sized toy dogs.

The dirty secret here is that if most people read their local municipal codes, they'd realize that they are already law breakers..............
Sorry, but I disagree. ANY law that prohibits the selling OR keeping of pets needs to be fought. Regardless of the location or possibility of it's enforcement.

With this attitude, it will be okay to stop selling anything in the pet trade, unless approved by some over-regulated government agency.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this passive approach that, "oh well, it won't mean that much because....".

This was the same approach the anti-2nd Amendment folks used for many years until we woke up and some of our firearms were illegal. This, all by our Federal government, not some hippy friendly city. So don't say it can't happen, recent activity in Florida only proves my point.

Jim Smith