July 2010 - Media-advisors

Re: [Media-advisors] Tuesday's True Tale
by Mary Long 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

That is a fundamental truth. Most folks don't really KNOW. Some could be turned to at least listen if they trusted the source. Some folks (based mostly on "air") don't believe there is a problem. Some folks are so entrenched in their beliefs they that they won't even consider there could be. Over the years, I've found that all of my non-bird friends and acquaintences have been completely oblivious to the situation and never even considered where the birds come from (other than pet stores) or living conditions. (Actually, I was taken by surprise by the recent article about the Amish puppy mills.) If only people just stopped to think for a minute about the implications of what Rick French (?) said - about Rescues competing with Pet Stores....like soupkitchens/foodbanks helping the poor/homeless competing with restuarants and grocery stores... Looking at the venire of Irena's community, her viewpoints are (as you could see) an island, and it is understandable with her tender heart, midwestern sensibilities and religious beliefs that she has been a bit more timid in her approach to persuade people to listen. Interesting that not many in the media have put in print that smart, adorable, loud, funny, social Snowball (who opened another window in science) is also capable of launching very aggressive attacks (not bites) on his beloved people. She has expressed interest many times in writing to any of the commissioners if I can have permission to send her an email address. --- On Wed, 7/21/10, Jonathan Harris <jonathanharris(a)earthlink.net> wrote: From: Jonathan Harris <jonathanharris(a)earthlink.net> Subject: [Media-advisors] Tuesday's True Tale To: "Mickaboo media advisor team" <media-advisors(a)mickaboo.org> Cc: adoptkings(a)gmail.com Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 11:47 PM #yiv1353895884 #yiv1353895884yiv1625315401 {font-family:Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial, sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}#yiv1353895884 #yiv1353895884yiv1625315401 p{margin:0px;} #yiv1353895884 #yiv1353895884yiv1625315401 {font-family:Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial, sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}#yiv1353895884 #yiv1353895884yiv1625315401 p{margin:0px;} Patricia and I were talking yesterday afternoon with an acquaintance — not a close friend but someone we know as intelligent and compassionate. She seems to be a rather spiritual person, though I don't know her exact beliefs. She has been an environmental activist during her life. She may well be a vegetarian. Anyway, I mentioned having been at the AWC meeting July 8. "Oh yes, I read about it in the Chronicle last Sunday," she said. "That was so ridiculous!" [stifling the inner scream] I explained why I supported the ban. Ten seconds into telling her what puppy mills and bird mills were (I was surprised she didn't know), she was crying and I believe utterly turned in her understanding of what pet store bird and puppy sales represent. This conversation was sobering and enlightening in three ways. It suggests, first, how strongly the SF Chronicle's early coverage may have colored people's perceptions of the ban and its supporters. Second, it shows how even people we might expect to support a ban have an initial gut-level reaction against it because it violates so much long-held common sense and experience. I saw how comments on the ban were running at Irena Schulz's Facebook page — other than postings by our Mary Long and Irena herself, all were in outraged opposition. Much educating to do, and I think Elizabeth is right that we must start with our own. It doesn't mean flooding the Discuss list with messages, just a couple strategic postings and a position statement by a respected voice like Tammy or Michelle. All we are doing is building upon our motto, "Don't breed, don't buy. Adopt." To which our volunteers, hopefully, are already committed. I don't want to turn everyone into an activist, much less distract from their other important work. I just want them to have absolute clarity about what the ban means and why Mickaboo supports it. I want them to be clear about the consequences of breeding and selling. I want them to be able and motivated to talk to their friends and peers. That's how movements build momentum — friends (armed with facts) talking to friends and peers. If we cannot convince our own community, we have little hope of convincing the supes or the public at large. If we can convince our community, they will become a most powerful voice in persuading others. Third, it points to where it is easiest to cut through people's ignorance and resistance. In this debate right now, people see pet stores holding the moral high ground. Pet sellers know that and are using it to tug on public sentiment. They accuse us of vilifying them, and most people believe it because what we propose clearly would prohibit them from doing what many naively assume is a pet store's core business - selling pets (isn't that why they're called 'pet stores'?). And we must be demonizing them if we say their core business is wrong. Worse, the people who are the most likely to be interested in this issue and voice their opinions the loudest (pet "owners") are precisely those most likely to have had repeated, friendly business dealings with these stores and have personal affection/respect for their owners and staff. So now they imagine we are going after people they know personally and like. That means the burden is heavily on us to show we are not demonizing these stores per se. But in order to convince people we mean it, we need to point to some greater evil sufficient to justify the apparently harsh demands we are making on these businesses. >From what I've read and the above conversation, we're not doing so well. I may be missing some, but I see three basic arguments to be made about why pet sales are wrong. First is the overpopulation/rescue crisis — the number of homeless birds is reaching epidemic proportions. This is a neutral, empirical argument for which we have supporting evidence (number of surrenders) and logic (aging population, long-lived parrots), and this is the argument we have been making mainly. I worry it may be a bit abstract to many people because they don't see tons of stray birds and won't look much past the low shelter numbers of birds, regardless of what we say. I think that may be why the Op Eds came across to some people as a bit understated. Suffering animals are unfortunate, but they are not an "evil." The second argument is the crisis of UNWANTED birds — Birds are inherently difficult. People buy them with insufficient knowledge and unrealistic expectations, end up frustrated, neglect and/or harm their birds, and eventually relinquish them. Much truth to that, but the evidence is heavily anecdotal and the arguments contentious and provocative. We run into bird lovers' perception that we are demonizing the nice stores that sold them their birds (because they provided inadequate guidance for care). Or worse, we are saying they themselves are inadequate and unworthy caregivers. Which ties in nicely with the claim that we are AR extremists who want to deny them the right to have pets. So here too, we are on difficult rhetorical ground. The third argument is the inherent, extreme, and intolerable cruelty in the breeding and selling of companion birds. Here we have statistics, reason, and devastating graphic evidence. We even can split off the three independent SF stores that sell birds in seemingly good, clean conditions. "This isn't about you, it's about the monstrously inhumane system of industrial farming that produces the animals you sell." People get that. They got it when the UFW called for a grape boycott, then a boycott of stores selling grapes. They got it when people started demanding divestment from firms doing business in South Africa. They got it 200 years ago when people in England boycotted sugar from countries where it was produced by slave labor. And I think they got puppy mills when Oprah interviewed Wayne Pacelle. People understand inhumanity and cruelty. If we can show that bird mills are every bit as bad as puppy mills and that the birds being sold in SF stores are being produced under horribly inhumane conditions, I think it will have a real impact on how people see the debate and frame the question. I know Michelle, Karen and others have felt the whole breeding issue was a distraction and maybe even counterproductive since, obviously, prohibiting pet sales does nothing to address breeding. But I think it does have something to do with it, since without retail outlets, wholesalers and breeders (at least the large-scale, industrial ones) could not continue. I'm not saying don't make the other arguments. Make them forcefully. Make them central. But don't ignore breeding. It is "low-hanging fruit" — a compelling argument we should use wherever possible. -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

1 0

Re: [Media-advisors] checking statistics on US captive bird numbers
by Jonathan Harris 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

1 0

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

24 Jul '10

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 -----Original Message----- 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

5 6

checking statistics on US captive bird numbers
by Jonathan Harris 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

3 2

Re: [Media-advisors] IMPORTANT FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
by Jonathan Harris 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

1 0

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

24 Jul '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: LDY <harris.rose(a)att.net> Date: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:36 AM Subject: Re: Working Group Update July 23 11PM To: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> 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> 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<http://mc/compose?to=glassgerrie@gmail.com> >* wrote: From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=glassgerrie@gmail.com> > Subject: Working Group Update July 21 11AM To: "Elizabeth Y" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=adoptkings@gmail.com> > Cc: "Sally Stephens" <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com<http://mc/compose?to=stephensfw@mindspring.com>>, saveABunny(a)aol.com <http://mc/compose?to=saveABunny@aol.com>, "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com <http://mc/compose?to=pam.hemphill@gmail.com>>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net<http://mc/compose?to=kflaherty@pacbell.net>>, "Rose Harris" <harris.rose(a)att.net<http://mc/compose?to=harris.rose@att.net>>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk(a)idausa.org <http://mc/compose?to=emk@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<http://mc/compose?to=glassgerrie@gmail.com> >* wrote: From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=glassgerrie@gmail.com> > Subject: working group? To: "Elizabeth Young" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=adoptkings@gmail.com> > Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=pam.hemphill@gmail.com>>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net<http://mc/compose?to=kflaherty@pacbell.net>>, "Rose Harris" <harris.rose(a)att.net<http://mc/compose?to=harris.rose@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 <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

Mickaboo Media Advisors Group
by Karen Watkins 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

Hi Maggie, How are you? A few of us are in an email list that manages media-related items for Mickaboo. We formed it when we decided to support the ban on retail sales of animals in San Francisco. Would you like to join our group? You have published quite a few articles and we can use someone like you in the group. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Karen M. Watkins

1 0

Press Release for Wild Conures Fair in Walnut Creek
by Karen Watkins 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

Can we pull a press release together for Jennifer's conure fair in Walnut Creek Sunday? We have media contacts for the area that Mary Long could send it to. Is Patty Blau on this list?

4 3

Re: [Media-advisors] IMPORTANT FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
by Mary Long 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

Let me know if the file size on the aviary photos are too large - can downsize. --- 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, 11:14 AM 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-----

1 0

Fwd: [Ticket#0163746] Moved ticket in ">OTRS_CUSTOMER_QUEUE<" queue! (New voicemail from [...])
by Pamela Lee 23 Jul '10

23 Jul '10

Hi folks, I'm stuck in an airport. This looks like a request for an interview or story. May I ask someone to listen to the voicemail and handle? Sent from my Peek - Pam ------------------------------------- From: Mickaboo Workflow System<otrs(a)mickaboo.org> To: pambudgie(a)yahoo.com Subject: [Ticket#0163746] Moved ticket in ">OTRS_CUSTOMER_QUEUE<" queue! (New voicemail from [...]) Date: Jul 23, 5:06 PM Hi, Sandy Gleason" moved a ticket [0163746] into "Outreach and PR". <snip> > Voicemail from (415) 765-4077 at 10:57 AM > Transcript: Hello, My name is Mike sugarman. I'm a reporter at. A. C. B. > S, > radio and weird, doing a story about the while here I don't know what > that > meant. The Give me a call (415) 760-5968 (415) 760-5968. Mike sugarman. > P. > C. B. S. Thanks. > Play message: > https://www.google.com/voice/fm/07486060940300231586/AHwOX_CWEP_0lXvqHkE_Ze… > > You have 2 Google Voice invites left. Invite a friend ( > https://www.google.com/voice/account/signin/?prev=%2F%23invite%2F ); <snip> https://mickaboo.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentZoom&TicketID=64166 Your OTRS Notification Master

4 4