How come Los Angeles and a growing number of cities are able to beat San Francisco in banning pet store dog sales? (Oakland: for sale)

[citizensadvocate]

Usually San Francisco and its surrounding liberal communities that form the Bay Area lead the state and possibly the nation in setting the trend of banning or regulating this and that. I remember back in 2011 San Francisco had proposed a pet sale ban within city limits that bans sales of dogs, cats, birds, and any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls, or slithers. The ban was originally intended to avoid the support of so called "puppy mills" or "kitty mills" that mass breed such pups or kittens in deplorable conditions. Though the proposal was quickly tabled and not brought back to the council again. However it appears some cities in Socal picked up the trend here San Francisco left off and actually passed a proposed ban on dog sales in pet stores. Up to date non of the cities in the Bay Area had passed such ordinances. Yet about 11 cities in the South part of the state actually passed such an ordinance. I wonder what had caused Socal rather than the Bay Area to become the trend setter for this movement? I am still puzzled by is this a issue of who shouts the loudest and who have the most influence in different regions?
Also based on the list it appears that unlike most movements in the Bay Area which has a liberal bias and supported by more hippy "progressive" minded council members who are mostly democrats and follow a similar agenda. There seem to be no set pattern of what determines type of city council would support this anti cruelty movements as while some cities on the list are pretty hippy "liberal" such as Los Angeles, Laguna Beach, and West Hollywood, there are also some very conservative cities with Republican majority that passed such an ordinance such as Huntington Beach and Carlsbad(though repealed about a month later). I know usually so called "conservatives" put business interests ahead of other factors though I wonder are they also a strong supporter of animal rights particularly if it involves mens best friend? Its true though that some Republicans did defend pet stores who wound be shut down for doing nothing wrong rather than punish those responsible for the "mills." Though I am still puzzled that no city in liberal Bay Area, otherwise known as the cradle for animal rights, is on the list, I mean not even Berkeley.

[Cream1]

Why don't you ask them in the San Francisco forum?

[quixotic59]

Paragraphs are your friends.

[BennyPhoenix]

Perhaps Because the bay area is comprised of a bunch of liberal poseurs who try to act hip/cool but they really dont care so Their follow thru is nil.
The liberals down here seem to have a better follow thru.
BTW, the anti-puppy mill stuff doesn't seem to work. There are plenty of puppy mills that advertise on craigslist and such.
Make the pet shop illegal and other avenues for selling will be found.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

Usually San Francisco and its surrounding liberal communities that form the Bay Area lead the state and possibly the nation in setting the trend of banning or regulating this and that. I remember back in 2011 San Francisco had proposed a pet sale ban within city limits that bans sales of dogs, cats, birds, and any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls, or slithers. The ban was originally intended to avoid the support of so called "puppy mills" or "kitty mills" that mass breed such pups or kittens in deplorable conditions. Though the proposal was quickly tabled and not brought back to the council again. However it appears some cities in Socal picked up the trend here San Francisco left off and actually passed a proposed ban on dog sales in pet stores. Up to date non of the cities in the Bay Area had passed such ordinances. Yet about 11 cities in the South part of the state actually passed such an ordinance. I wonder what had caused Socal rather than the Bay Area to become the trend setter for this movement? I am still puzzled by is this a issue of who shouts the loudest and who have the most influence in different regions?
Also based on the list it appears that unlike most movements in the Bay Area which has a liberal bias and supported by more hippy "progressive" minded council members who are mostly democrats and follow a similar agenda. There seem to be no set pattern of what determines type of city council would support this anti cruelty movements as while some cities on the list are pretty hippy "liberal" such as Los Angeles, Laguna Beach, and West Hollywood, there are also some very conservative cities with Republican majority that passed such an ordinance such as Huntington Beach and Carlsbad(though repealed about a month later). I know usually so called "conservatives" put business interests ahead of other factors though I wonder are they also a strong supporter of animal rights particularly if it involves mens best friend? Its true though that some Republicans did defend pet stores who wound be shut down for doing nothing wrong rather than punish those responsible for the "mills." Though I am still puzzled that no city in liberal Bay Area, otherwise known as the cradle for animal rights, is on the list, I mean not even Berkeley.

LA has more actual true "granola" white people and banana/oreo/etc PoC than we do here. The advocacy of animal rights is strongest with that "granola" demographic. Also: Up here we have some traditional immigrant communities that actively fight against animal rights. For example, fighting against proposed laws to ban live seafood stock being kept in restos, and / or Halal butcher shops that slaughter on site.

[citizensadvocate]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

LA has more actual true "granola" white people and banana/oreo/etc PoC than we do here. The advocacy of animal rights is strongest with that "granola" demographic. Also: Up here we have some traditional immigrant communities that actively fight against animal rights. For example, fighting against proposed laws to ban live seafood stock being kept in restos, and / or Halal butcher shops that slaughter on site.

Though the Bay Area happens to be the hot spot of banning shark fin soup and banning carryout bags(of all the other plastic film in existence like if only a certain 0.6% use of it kills sea turtles and whales) The Bay Area happens to be more of the pro animal rights in many other regards. I guess pet dogs lives are worth more in Socal than Norcal. LA and Socal has just as large immigrant population of not larger and LA has a traditional Chinatown that kills live animals for sale yet there isn't much of an outcry as how groups demonize San Francisco's Chinatown for doing the same. Though it appears no city in the Bay Area had fallen for this. Though one thing for certain, unlike in SoCal where one will still find quite a number of neighboring cities opting out of a fad legislation trend, in the Bay Area if one the major liberal enclaves sneezes (i.e San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, or even Davis) most of the other cities will catch cold within the next few years.