July 2010 - Media-advisors

DO NOT FORWARD Fwd: Next LA Times piece on ban...
by Elizabeth Young 28 Jul '10

28 Jul '10

Mira Tweti forwarded my Where Are You? note to Wayne along with her own (below). I'm sharing this but just for your eyes only, please. Thanks, e ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mira Tweti <Mira(a)miramarmango.com> Date: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:32 PM Subject: Fwd: Next LA Times piece on ban... To: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> I just sent this to his personal email. He could read it tonight. He's a night owl. Begin forwarded message: *From: *Mira Tweti <MiraTweti(a)CircleBlueProds.com> *Date: *July 27, 2010 8:25:30 PM PDT *To: *Wayne Pacelle *Subject: **Next LA Times piece on ban... * Hi Wayne, Per Elizabeth's request below I'm forwarding her email. I had no part in composing it but I did think the quote you gave the LA Times was unfortunate because it didn't buy the ban supporters any currency and it was a perfect opportunity to weigh in. I pitched Carla on this story coupla weeks ago. She wanted to do it.. She said the same when we connected today. She's not daunted about the piece that ran but she is looking for a hook to do another. Please, do a blog & come out in support. *Or* - send an email to Commissioner Philip Gerrie (glassgerrie(a)gmail.com) saying so. He's the he Animal Control & Welfare Commissioner that proposed it. If you do the latter let me know & I'll get a copy from him & slip it to Carla. It's a good news hook & she could run with it as an exclusive (before your blog of course). That would be great for her and the ban. I've been staying in touch w/ Gerrie. After hearing all the testimony he told me he's still fully supporting a ban and so is at least one other commissioner. He thinks it will pass at the next meeting Aug 13. To do so, it needs a majority vote of the seven. One reason it can pass regardless of public opinion: the commission doesn't have to bow to public sentiment. They are charged with protecting animals within city limits based on the welfare of the animals. And, there's that precedent from the bunny & chick ban in effect for decades. (You gotta give SF credit. They are so far ahead of the curve when it comes to doing the right thing regardless of what the rest of the country does or thinks.) So that's good news but: - the commissioners are going to get a ton of shit for that decision if they do make it. - the pressure is going to increase from breeders/pet stores to convince them otherwise every day closer to a vote. - they're not all on board yet. Right now the only influential opinions reaching the public are local papers laughing at the idea in news pieces & editorials. They say they don't think small animals are worth anyone's time or attention, not even this commission's. I got pulled into this too. I was minding my own business until I got contacted and asked to come to speak at the hearing earlier this month. I didn't even know about it then. Now I see that a ban is crucial for the obvious reasons and because it is poised to have a domino effect. As you probably know, the head of animal Services here in LA &, I think it was Bloomberg in NY (or someone near him in rank) both said publicly they are watching to see what happens in SF because they're considering proposing the same. HSUS carries so much weight your endorsement would go miles to neutralize and quiet all the naysayers. And maybe most importantly, it would give needed backbone to the commissioners who, in all their years, have never seen pressure like this. As always warm regards, Mira PS You should meet Gerrie he's a good ally. I had dinner w/him & Elizabeth after the hearing earlier this month. He's mild mannered & unassuming with a huge heart for animals and balls big enough to fight for them. Look him up the next time you're in the bay area if you have time. PPS Has Lisa landed? Begin forwarded message: *From: *Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> *Date: *July 27, 2010 5:47:05 PM PDT *To: *Mira Tweti <miratweti(a)parrotpress.net> *Subject: **Fwd: Where are you?* Mira- Please do me a favor and forward this to Wayne if at all possible. I doubt he'd ever see it at the email address I have. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:45 PM Subject: Where are you? To: Wayne Pacelle <blog(a)humanesociety.org> Cc: Mira Tweti <miratweti(a)parrotpress.net>, Tammy Azzaro < tammyazzaro(a)gmail.com>, Michelle Yesney <msyesney(a)gmail.com>, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Dear Wayne, I've been such a big fan and supporter of yours and I so appreciate all the whirlwind of good you've been doing all over the country and the world for animals (and for us people when we have sense enough to realize it). I even cheered your effort with Michael Vick. That took real guts and vision. But where are you now for all the many unwanted pets in San Francisco? I never dared dream so big that SF might consider banning the sale of pets but when that opportunity came along, me and other completely overwhelmed and overworked animal rescue VOLUNTEERS jumped at the chance to fight this David & Goliath battle. With all the overwhelming amount of work we're already doing on behalf of unwanted birds and animals in SF, we've taken on still more to help this measure gain strength and attention. We know we're facing astronomical odds, but we're taking on the challenge in the hope that we can not only help the unwanted and abandoned and facing-euthanasia pets of SF but elsewhere as this planted seed begins to grow. But where are you? So far, I've read a recommendation from the HSUS that cockatiels and budgies and other small birds continue to be sold! Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue <http://www.mickaboo.org/> was STARTED 15 years ago to help all the thrown-away cockatiels! We've had to grow with the demand and now serve everything from finches and doves to cockatoos and macaws and everybody in between. We currently have more than FIFTY cockatiels alone in foster care waiting for good adopters and so many more would-be-surrenderers that we've had to impose a moratorium on intake. We do NOT think these smart, sensitive birds are good choices to be sold when there are SO many already out there in need of good homes. Their life spans are 20-30 years. They are disposed of in hordes- just check craigslist or the Ebay classifieds. And then, the next thing, I read your quote in Maria La Granga's LA Times article. Great. So we don't even have the support of the HSUS. Well, Wayne, you've been a leader in many, many of these fights but you're bringing up the rear in this one. Personally, I really wish you'd catch up and help us. We and all these many homeless pets could use the support. If San Francisco, the city of Saint Francis, can't be a sanctuary city for pets, where in America will be? Thanks for all that you do and please- do a little bit more. Sincerely, Elizabeth Young, Mickaboo Volunteer -- Elizabeth Until they all have homes, don't buy, don't breed- adopt. www.RescueReport.org <http://www.rescuereport.org/> www.MickaCoo.org <http://www.mickacoo.org/> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0 -- Elizabeth Until they all have homes, don't buy, don't breed- adopt. www.RescueReport.org <http://www.rescuereport.org/> www.MickaCoo.org <http://www.mickacoo.org/> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0 -- 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

1 0

Re: [Media-advisors] Fwd: Where are you?
by Jonathan Harris 27 Jul '10

27 Jul '10

3 2

Fwd: Where are you?
by Elizabeth Young 27 Jul '10

27 Jul '10

I just got mad and wrote this. Thought I'd share with you. I've asked Mira to forward this to Wayne. Hmph. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:45 PM Subject: Where are you? To: Wayne Pacelle <blog(a)humanesociety.org> Cc: Mira Tweti <miratweti(a)parrotpress.net>, Tammy Azzaro < tammyazzaro(a)gmail.com>, Michelle Yesney <msyesney(a)gmail.com>, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Dear Wayne, I've been such a big fan and supporter of yours and I so appreciate all the whirlwind of good you've been doing all over the country and the world for animals (and for us people when we have sense enough to realize it). I even cheered your effort with Michael Vick. That took real guts and vision. But where are you now for all the many unwanted pets in San Francisco? I never dared dream so big that SF might consider banning the sale of pets but when that opportunity came along, me and other completely overwhelmed and overworked animal rescue VOLUNTEERS jumped at the chance to fight this David & Goliath battle. With all the overwhelming amount of work we're already doing on behalf of unwanted birds and animals in SF, we've taken on still more to help this measure gain strength and attention. We know we're facing astronomical odds, but we're taking on the challenge in the hope that we can not only help the unwanted and abandoned and facing-euthanasia pets of SF but elsewhere as this planted seed begins to grow. But where are you? So far, I've read a recommendation from the HSUS that cockatiels and budgies and other small birds continue to be sold! Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue <http://www.mickaboo.org/> was STARTED 15 years ago to help all the thrown-away cockatiels! We've had to grow with the demand and now serve everything from finches and doves to cockatoos and macaws and everybody in between. We currently have more than FIFTY cockatiels alone in foster care waiting for good adopters and so many more would-be-surrenderers that we've had to impose a moratorium on intake. We do NOT think these smart, sensitive birds are good choices to be sold when there are SO many already out there in need of good homes. Their life spans are 20-30 years. They are disposed of in hordes- just check craigslist or the Ebay classifieds. And then, the next thing, I read your quote in Maria La Granga's LA Times article. Great. So we don't even have the support of the HSUS. Well, Wayne, you've been a leader in many, many of these fights but you're bringing up the rear in this one. Personally, I really wish you'd catch up and help us. We and all these many homeless pets could use the support. If San Francisco, the city of Saint Francis, can't be a sanctuary city for pets, where in America will be? Thanks for all that you do and please- do a little bit more. Sincerely, Elizabeth Young, Mickaboo Volunteer -- Elizabeth Until they all have homes, don't buy, don't breed- adopt. www.RescueReport.org <http://www.rescuereport.org/> www.MickaCoo.org <http://www.mickacoo.org/> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0 -- 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

2 1

Fwd: Meeting w/pet store owners and others??
by Elizabeth Young 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

I'm unavailable this Friday unfortunately and so couldn't go even if y'all would let me. Somebody sure should! Please let me know so that I can get back to Sally. e ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com> Date: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 8:16 PM Subject: Meeting w/pet store owners and others?? To: adoptkings(a)gmail.com Hi Elizabeth, Would you be willing/able to meet with me, Philip Gerrie, and reps of pet stores and ACC to discuss the proposed ban on the sale of animals at pet stores? The idea is to exchange ideas and perspectives and to see if there is any common ground for the various sides of the issue. We're looking to meet this Friday, July 30 at about 1:30 or so somewhere in Noe Valley (likely a restaurant or coffeeshop). Can you join us? -- Sally -- 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

2 1

Re: [Media-advisors] IMPORTANT FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
by Mary Long 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

I do have to preface my earlier comments on galvanized cages. I use an older one for our 'tiels/budies/quail. But as you can see in the attached pictures, they have a wide variety of highways, freeways, "back roads" and hanging perches. Some are made of braided cotton rope, reed, acrylic, woods, etc. Plus I leave the "lower" area clear for flight. As a result, they rarely, rarely use the aviary bars to get from A to B. The 2009a shows the "east" side of the aviary (toys, food, water, preening areas). The 2009b shows the "west" side where (only perches) because that's the end I provide the mist-baths (dont' want moldy toys). The 2010 shot doesn't show much depth, but there's a maze of toys of they can climb on, hang off, etc, and provides them some privacy, too. They are all not constantly in direct view of eachother if they choose not to. --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Mary Long <atechi2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: From: Mary Long <atechi2(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] IMPORTANT FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM To: "Mickaboo media advisor team" <media-advisors(a)mickaboo.org> Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 10:26 AM The video, ugh: No enrichments - no toys anywhere in sight! Important for all animals/birds - but especially for plucking birds (to try and redirect attention w/activities). No variety of perches or ropes to walk, climb, hang from. Inadequate caging. Saw a cockatoo on a small galvanized (steel & zinc) cage. Might not be a problem if they had suspended perches - but is obvious they actually transit the cage bars with foot & beak, and considering that especially birds "from Oz" are prone to heavy metal toxicity...they need to be in powder-coated or stainless steel cages. There are better articles out there - but here's one link: http://www.avianweb.com/heavymetalpoisoningbirds.html and http://www.avianweb.com/buildingacage.html Never saw flight cages that housed the eclectus used for birds. But looks like painted wire. "Bar" sizing seems dangerous. Birds taken outside are not in harness. If startled, even if they can't fly, they can make really bad decisions - and on a busy street I can easily see them "jumping off" the shoulder or hand and running into a dangerous situation with traffic or dogs (etc) on the street. Carriers are best for street transportation. --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Subject: [Media-advisors] IMPORTANT FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM To: "Mickaboo media advisor team" <media-advisors(a)mickaboo.org> Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 8:29 AM I know we've answered the question about which birds before but I think we need to provide an answer that we would publish. Can anybody write something up? And see Wing Foundation video below. e From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:32 PM To: harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>; saveABunny(a)aol.com; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>; Elliot M. Katz DVM <emk(a)idausa.org> Subject: Working Group Update July 23 11PM A couple of queries. As we consider a ban on the sale of birds, do we consider all birds or just the exotic parrot species as delineated by HSUS? Good choices Canaries, finches, cockatiels, parakeets, and lovebirds are birds who have a long history of selective breeding in captivity and can be considered domesticated strains of wild species. Their basic needs are more easily met, proper supplies to care for them are readily available, and these birds can live long, happy lives in a caring home. Better kept in the wild In comparison, birds like conures, parrots (of whom there are many varieties), macaws, cockatoos, and toucans are problematic because they have not undergone the same process of long captive breeding and genetic selection. These birds are still wild animals, even when bred in captivity. As such, their normal behavior can make them difficult and demanding to live with. Dana Strome's video of her bird house in the Mission, http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2010-06/bird-shrink, Comments? From the video can you see problems with how she is keeping care of her 50 parrots? That's it for now, Philip I didn't know Ken White wrote for SFGATE. Do you know if he's on any type of submission schedule for them? I always read his pieces in The Examiner but they stopped carrying him. He can be good. I thought his article was good, thanks for letting us know about it. L-Danyielle --- On Wed, 7/21/10, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Subject: Working Group Update July 21 11AM To: "Elizabeth Y" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Cc: "Sally Stephens" <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>, saveABunny(a)aol.com, "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, "Rose Harris" <harris.rose(a)att.net>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk(a)idausa.org> Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 11:06 AM I looked this up this AM http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/white/detail?blogid=102&entry_id=67533 I thought it was very well written. You may have seen it already. Philip On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Philip Gerrie wrote: I will call Ed Buck in LA about sunsetting time allowance and the small business perspective. He's been very helpful. He originally introduced in West Hollywood the dog and cat ban. I don't remember if the issue came up there. Philip Begin forwarded message: From: "Elliot Katz" <emk(a)idausa.org> Date: July 20, 2010 8:20:35 AM PDT To: "'Philip Gerrie'" <glassgerrie(a)earthlink.net> Subject: FW: Working Group Update July 20 6:25 AM Reply-To: <emk(a)idausa.org> Hi Philip, you might want to call the LA people and get their input. Did this issue come up there? From: Philip Gerrie [mailto:glassgerrie@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:27 AM To: Rose Harris Cc: Elizabeth Young; Kim Flaherty; Pam Hemphill; Anna Williams; Elliot M. Katz DVM Subject: Working Group Update July 20 6:25 AM I've expanded this list a bit. Let me know if anyone does not want to be on it. I could use some help in this Small Business Commission angle. It sounds like Rick, of the Animal Company, thinks his business interests should trump animal welfare concerns. Are their precedents to cite?? Sally is out of town so I'll be going. Also what are suggested phase-out times if the ban is approved for existing pet stores?? One year? Two years? Three years? more?? Philip 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: working group? To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Cc: harris.rose(a)att.net, "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Subject: RE: working group? To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>, harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)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(a)gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:31 PM To: harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Subject: working group? To: "Elizabeth Young" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, "Rose Harris" <harris.rose(a)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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

2 1

FW: ACC Smalls In The News
by Elizabeth Y 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

I haven't read it yet. If you have, let me know how it sounds, please. e -----Original Message----- From: Deb.Campbell(a)sfgov.org Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:47 PM Subject: ACC Smalls In The News Hi Everyone, I'm sending along a link to today's Los Angeles Times. The Times ran a story about the proposed animal sales ban in SF - and the photos feature our own Penny! Check it out - and just do a Google News search if you want to see the multitude of stories on the topic that have run across the country and around the world. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pet-sales-ban-20100726,0,7367567.st… The Animal Welfare Commission will reconvene on August 12 for more discussion on the issue. Let me know if you have any opinions you would like shared - or if you are interested in attending. Thank you for everything you do for the little guys! Deb Deb Campbell Volunteer / Outreach Coordinator Animal Care & Control 1200 15th Street San Francisco, CA. 94103 Phone:415.554.9427 Fax: 415.557.9950 E.Mail: deb.campbell(a)sfgov.org www.animalshelter.sfgov.org (Embedded image moved to file: pic13781.jpg) San Francisco’s Open-Door Animal Shelter

3 2

FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
by Elizabeth Y 25 Jul '10

25 Jul '10

FYI, IDA's Dr. Elliot Katz' response on the types of birds to ban. -----Original Message----- From: Elliot Katz <emk(a)idausa.org> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:12 AM To: 'Philip Gerrie' <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>; harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: 'Elizabeth Y' <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; 'Sally Stephens' <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>; saveABunny(a)aol.com; 'Pam Hemphill' <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; 'Kim Flaherty' <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net> Subject: RE: Working Group Update July 23 11PM If the Commission is to send a true message of compassion and caring, I recommend the ordinance you put forth include all birds. It would then be up to the Board of Supervisors for them to choose which birds if any they include, according to what they see as politically expedient. The likely hood is that all species of birds kept in cages, isolated, mostly unable to fly suffer to the same extent, obviously some longer than others according to their life span. The smaller ones able to survive better in smaller cages, but still not having a true quality of life, Still being thought of as commodities and things to be bought and sold, discarded at an owners whim. Not exactly the message we want to send if we are truly the city of St. Francis a man whose compassion and caring is the basis for the animal protection movement, certainly the basis for IDA. Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first duty to them. But to stop there is not enough, we have a higher duty to them. To be of service to them wherever they require it. That is what I see we the proposed ordinance, the Commission and we, are all about. From: Philip Gerrie [mailto:glassgerrie@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:32 PM To: harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: Elizabeth Y; Sally Stephens; saveABunny(a)aol.com; Pam Hemphill; Kim Flaherty; Elliot M. Katz DVM Subject: Working Group Update July 23 11PM A couple of queries. As we consider a ban on the sale of birds, do we consider all birds or just the exotic parrot species as delineated by HSUS? Good choices Canaries, finches, cockatiels, parakeets, and lovebirds are birds who have a long history of selective breeding in captivity and can be considered domesticated strains of wild species. Their basic needs are more easily met, proper supplies to care for them are readily available, and these birds can live long, happy lives in a caring home. Better kept in the wild In comparison, birds like conures, parrots (of whom there are many varieties), macaws, cockatoos, and toucans are problematic because they have not undergone the same process of long captive breeding and genetic selection. These birds are still wild animals, even when bred in captivity. As such, their normal behavior can make them difficult and demanding to live with. Dana Strome's video of her bird house in the Mission, http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2010-06/bird-shrink, Comments? From the video can you see problems with how she is keeping care of her 50 parrots? That's it for now, Philip I didn't know Ken White wrote for SFGATE. Do you know if he's on any type of submission schedule for them? I always read his pieces in The Examiner but they stopped carrying him. He can be good. I thought his article was good, thanks for letting us know about it. L-Danyielle --- On Wed, 7/21/10, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Subject: Working Group Update July 21 11AM To: "Elizabeth Y" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Cc: "Sally Stephens" <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>, saveABunny(a)aol.com, "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, "Rose Harris" <harris.rose(a)att.net>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk(a)idausa.org> Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 11:06 AM I looked this up this AM http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/white/detail?blogid=102&entry_id=67533 I thought it was very well written. You may have seen it already. Philip On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Philip Gerrie wrote: I will call Ed Buck in LA about sunsetting time allowance and the small business perspective. He's been very helpful. He originally introduced in West Hollywood the dog and cat ban. I don't remember if the issue came up there. Philip Begin forwarded message: From: "Elliot Katz" <emk(a)idausa.org> Date: July 20, 2010 8:20:35 AM PDT To: "'Philip Gerrie'" <glassgerrie(a)earthlink.net> Subject: FW: Working Group Update July 20 6:25 AM Reply-To: <emk(a)idausa.org> Hi Philip, you might want to call the LA people and get their input. Did this issue come up there? From: Philip Gerrie [mailto:glassgerrie@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:27 AM To: Rose Harris Cc: Elizabeth Young; Kim Flaherty; Pam Hemphill; Anna Williams; Elliot M. Katz DVM Subject: Working Group Update July 20 6:25 AM I've expanded this list a bit. Let me know if anyone does not want to be on it. I could use some help in this Small Business Commission angle. It sounds like Rick, of the Animal Company, thinks his business interests should trump animal welfare concerns. Are their precedents to cite?? Sally is out of town so I'll be going. Also what are suggested phase-out times if the ban is approved for existing pet stores?? One year? Two years? Three years? more?? Philip 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: working group? To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Cc: harris.rose(a)att.net, "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Subject: RE: working group? To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>, harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)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(a)gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:31 PM To: harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Subject: working group? To: "Elizabeth Young" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, "Rose Harris" <harris.rose(a)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

1 0

Fwd: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
by Elizabeth Young 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:44 PM Subject: Re: Working Group Update July 23 11PM To: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Cc: harris.rose(a)att.net, Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>, saveABunny(a)aol.com, Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, Kim Flaherty < kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk(a)idausa.org> Hello- Regarding the video of Dana Strome's Wing Foundation, while there are a number of red flags seen in the video (unsafe bar-spacing, lack of toys/enrichment features, galvanized wire cage, birds outside unsafely unharnassed), Mickaboo does not want to speculate on the care or current condition of anyone's birds based on a video. And below are some responses from Mickaboo leaders regarding which birds to include in the ban (in short, Mickaboo favors banning the sale of all pet birds). *It's important to remember here that Mickaboo is supporting a ban on the retail sale of birds in SF - not the ownership of birds. Because of this detail, it's relatively moot which bird species make good pets vs bad pets in context of the ban. We're supporting the ban of ALL retail sales of birds as pets.* ** *I'd like to point out here that about 50% of our surrenders come from Cockatiels and Budgies - two of the species that make 'good choices' as detailed in your question. Although they're considered much more domesticated than some of the other birds such as conures, the question of retail sales isn't about "Domestic vs Wild". It's about "Impulse buy vs careful consideration".* ** *That fact is that half of our surrenders (Budgies and Tiels) are brought to us because they were bought on impulse, sold VERY cheaply by the pet seller as a loss-leader for more expensive pet supplies - and then the family realized that even domestic, small parrots can be demanding and noisy, or can get sick and require veterinary care. Often, even a simple routine veterinary checkup can exceed the initial cost of the bird, and that surprises many impulse buyers.* ** *Finally, I should point out that SF and many other cities have banned the retail sale of cats and dogs long ago - and those two species of animal have been domesticated far longer than any of the parrot species.* And *Matt's points are the essential ones, and forcefully put. In addition, it is maybe worth pointing out that "parakeets" (budgies), cockatiels, and lovebirds ARE exotic parrot species (since that's where HSUS would draw the line). They have the same, complex needs for social interaction and stimulation as larger parrots; they suffer the same emotional traumas from confinement and deprivation and show similar stereotypic behavioral responses, such as self-mutilation. While there are important differences in the specific needs of parrots versus passerines (e.g., finches and canaries), all birds suffer from isolation and confinement, and pet stores sell these birds as individuals with tiny cages. The fact finches and canaries are smaller, quieter, and anatomically less-capable of self-mutilation, biting, or screaming does not mean they live happily in such conditions - just that they may be less capable of expressing their misery in ways we easily perceive. * ** *Regarding the "long history" of selective breeding, what is noteworthy is that it has not been long enough to produce anything like a true domestic animal in terms of tameness. Canaries, budgies, and cockatiels, though they have been bred for a few centuries, are still essentially wild animals. Captive breeding has helped to isolate and select for such features as color or, in the case of canaries, song. Reducing the gene pool has created weaker populations - shorter-lived individuals prone to more diseases. And selecting for such features further promotes the idea of these small birds as being primarily decorative, instead of the complex, intelligent creatures with complex needs we know them to be.* And This e-mail contains some upsetting information but I think it's important for everyone to know these things in order to get a feel for how important it is to try to protect the smaller species, too. When I started Mickaboo, it was primarily to help the smaller birds. The "throwaway" birds. I was so tired of getting calls (at BABH, where I worked) from people saying how sick their bird was and when I would attempt to schedule an appt., they would gasp at the cost (at that time, 45.00) and say how they "only spent 50.00...etc. for the bird". I had countless requests for information on at-home "euthanasia" (i.e. murder :( I was told that birds were going to be flushed, put under the wheel of cars, put into bags and tied to the exhaust pipe of a car...horrifying When I would try to refer them to the shelter (if the owner was even motivated enough to consider taking a bird there), the bird would usually be euthanized there because the shelter vets knew nothing about birds and had no other options. Their method of euthanasia was not kind either, but better than the at-home options. At least w/ the larger birds there is a larger immediate financial commitment so they usually have more expectation of financial responsibiltiy. when people find out a 15.00 Budgie costs the same as a 1,000.00 Macaw to treat, they want to get rid of the responsibility, period. Pet stores do nothing to prepare buyers. I've bought many birds at pet stores to save them from certain death and never was I questioned about my knowledge or what kind of care the bird required. The Budgie/Cockatiel was popped into a box and money changed hands. I wasn't even given the "care sheets" that are now required by law. Most of the larger birds we get come to us due to plucking, screaming or biting. This is a stress to our foster system. Most of the smaller birds come to us becuase of health problems. This is a stress to our foster system as well but also a huge stress to our finances. If nothing is done to stifle their sales, we will be taking in more and more at higher and higher cost. If there is a way to stop even a fraction of their sales, we should do our best to support that option.responsibily. On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>wrote: > A couple of queries. As we consider a ban on the sale of birds, do we > consider *all* birds or just the exotic parrot species as delineated by > HSUS? > > Good choices > > Canaries, finches, cockatiels, parakeets, and lovebirds are birds who have > a long history of selective breeding in captivity and can be considered > domesticated strains of wild species. Their basic needs are more easily met, > proper supplies to care for them are readily available, and these birds can > live long, happy lives in a caring home. > Better kept in the wild > > In comparison, birds like conures, parrots (of whom there are many > varieties), macaws, cockatoos, and toucans are problematic because they have > not undergone the same process of long captive breeding and genetic > selection. These birds are still wild animals, even when bred in captivity. > As such, their normal behavior can make them difficult and demanding to live > with. > Dana Strome's video of her bird house in the Mission, > http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2010-06/bird-shrink, Comments? From the > video can you see problems with how she is keeping care of her 50 parrots? > > That's it for now, Philip > > > > -- Elizabeth Until they all have homes, don't buy, don't breed- adopt. www.RescueReport.org <http://www.rescuereport.org/> www.MickaCoo.org <http://www.mickacoo.org/> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0 -- 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

3 2

FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
by Elizabeth Y 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

Regarding the Wing Foundation (see latest below), I don't know that we want to be the 'Bird Rescue Cops' and critique others' efforts from a video but if someone has well founded concern for the well being of Dana's birds, now might be the time to share it. Otherwise, I'll express that, while there are several red flags in the video, we would not want to speculate about the current condition of the WF's birds based on a video. I'll also forward the types-of-birds to ban responses and seek permission to share Philip's email with Irena. When I last asked about giving it out (not to Irena), he asked that I forward to him instead. Anything anybody wants to add/modify before I respond to Philip's group? e -----Original Message----- From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 2:38 PM To: harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>; saveABunny(a)aol.com; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>; Elliot M. Katz DVM <emk(a)idausa.org>; Anna Williams <annaw1123(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: Working Group Update July 23 11PM The complaints about her/ from her are that ACC does not work with her, Peninsula Humane does, Mickaboo does not work with her, Rick, from Animal Company, does. Complaints are that she doesn't keep the birds in adequate conditions. The video shows her place. it was suggested to actually pay a visit. I was wanting to understand what about her place is not good for the birds. It didn't look like a hoarding situation to me. When does it become a hoarding situation? Philip On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:36 AM, LDY wrote: Well what can I say. She is a 501c3 and taking animals that are neglected and bringing them back to health. I don't know her and have to believe she's doing a good job. I still don't like anything in a cage but these birds only have one other option, being killed. I wish she did adoptions. It is possible to get good homes for rescued animals, just a little work as we all know. What do others think? L-Danyielle --- On Fri, 7/23/10, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Subject: Working Group Update July 23 11PM To: harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: "Elizabeth Y" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>, "Sally Stephens" <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>, saveABunny(a)aol.com, "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk(a)idausa.org> Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 11:32 PM A couple of queries. As we consider a ban on the sale of birds, do we consider all birds or just the exotic parrot species as delineated by HSUS? Good choices Canaries, finches, cockatiels, parakeets, and lovebirds are birds who have a long history of selective breeding in captivity and can be considered domesticated strains of wild species. Their basic needs are more easily met, proper supplies to care for them are readily available, and these birds can live long, happy lives in a caring home. Better kept in the wild In comparison, birds like conures, parrots (of whom there are many varieties), macaws, cockatoos, and toucans are problematic because they have not undergone the same process of long captive breeding and genetic selection. These birds are still wild animals, even when bred in captivity. As such, their normal behavior can make them difficult and demanding to live with. Dana Strome's video of her bird house in the Mission, http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2010-06/bird-shrink, Comments? From the video can you see problems with how she is keeping care of her 50 parrots? That's it for now, Philip I didn't know Ken White wrote for SFGATE. Do you know if he's on any type of submission schedule for them? I always read his pieces in The Examiner but they stopped carrying him. He can be good. I thought his article was good, thanks for letting us know about it. L-Danyielle --- On Wed, 7/21/10, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Subject: Working Group Update July 21 11AM To: "Elizabeth Y" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Cc: "Sally Stephens" <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>, saveABunny(a)aol.com, "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, "Rose Harris" <harris.rose(a)att.net>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk(a)idausa.org> Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 11:06 AM I looked this up this AM http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/white/detail?blogid=102&entry_id=67533 I thought it was very well written. You may have seen it already. Philip On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Philip Gerrie wrote: I will call Ed Buck in LA about sunsetting time allowance and the small business perspective. He's been very helpful. He originally introduced in West Hollywood the dog and cat ban. I don't remember if the issue came up there. Philip Begin forwarded message: From: "Elliot Katz" <emk(a)idausa.org> Date: July 20, 2010 8:20:35 AM PDT To: "'Philip Gerrie'" <glassgerrie(a)earthlink.net> Subject: FW: Working Group Update July 20 6:25 AM Reply-To: <emk(a)idausa.org> Hi Philip, you might want to call the LA people and get their input. Did this issue come up there? From: Philip Gerrie [mailto:glassgerrie@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:27 AM To: Rose Harris Cc: Elizabeth Young; Kim Flaherty; Pam Hemphill; Anna Williams; Elliot M. Katz DVM Subject: Working Group Update July 20 6:25 AM I've expanded this list a bit. Let me know if anyone does not want to be on it. I could use some help in this Small Business Commission angle. It sounds like Rick, of the Animal Company, thinks his business interests should trump animal welfare concerns. Are their precedents to cite?? Sally is out of town so I'll be going. Also what are suggested phase-out times if the ban is approved for existing pet stores?? One year? Two years? Three years? more?? Philip 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: working group? To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Cc: harris.rose(a)att.net, "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Subject: RE: working group? To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>, harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)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(a)gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:31 PM To: harris.rose(a)att.net Cc: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Subject: working group? To: "Elizabeth Young" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, "Rose Harris" <harris.rose(a)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

3 2

nomination
by Jonathan Harris 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

5 5