August 2010 - Media-advisors

Re: [Media-advisors] [MickaCoo] A quote that really touched me
by Elizabeth Young 13 Aug '10

13 Aug '10

Barna asks- *Who was that white-haired lady who claimed to have the solution for the bird overpopulation problem, by simply letting her organization take and place all birds (if I understood correctly)?* ** That was Mary Ellen LePage, VP of the American Federation of Aviculture<http://www.afabirds.org/>(AFA) and yes- you understood correctly. She said last night that "there's no problem with excess birds" and asks that AFA be allowed to rehome all exotic birds. *Here are my notes on her comments to the Commission at the 7/8 meeting* Mary Ellen _____, VP of American Federation of Aviculture (flew in from ??) AFA opposes the whole ban but especially for birds recommends education and setting standards of care "We don't know that birds suffer in cages" "We don't know why birds pluck" Elizabeth On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Barna Mink <barnoat(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Who was that white-haired lady who claimed to have the solution for the > bird overpopulation problem, by simply letting her organization take and > place all birds (if I understood correctly)? > > Barna > > > On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:37 AM, C Dickinson wrote: > > Yes it is very true and if it were not for you seeing the King Pigeons > at the ACC did not have a rescue group, they would have had not had a > chance. You gave them a face and protection. > > ____________________________________________________________ > Cheryl > A Reiki Master - www.cheryldickinson.com > A MickaCoo Volunteer - www.MickaCoo.org <http://www.mickacoo.org/> > A King Pigeon Rescuer - http://cheryldickinson.com/kings.htm > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> > *To:* MickaCoo(a)mickaboo.org > *Cc:* Karen Watkins <karen.watkins(a)gmail.com>; Teresa Murphy < > teresa(a)cavyspirit.com>; Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)earthlink.net>; > Jonathan Harris <jonathanharris(a)earthlink.net>; Pamela Lee < > pambudgie(a)yahoo.com> > *Sent:* Fri, August 13, 2010 12:10:12 AM > *Subject:* [MickaCoo] A quote that really touched me > > Hello- > > I was at the SF Animal Control & Welfare Commission tonight (as were Cheryl > D and Barna and several Mickaboo volunteers among others) and guinea pig > rescuer Teresa Murphy made a presentation that included a quote that I've > seen before but not in its entirety. It is from Mahatma Ghandi and the part > that was both new to me as well as especially moving said "The more helpless > a creature is, the more it deserves protection from human cruelty." > > I have often wondered how I wound up being a pigeon rescuer and I think > that is the answer. > > Elizabeth Y > www.RescueReport.org <http://www.rescuereport.org/> > > _______________________________________________ > MickaCoo mailing list > MickaCoo(a)mickaboo.org > https://mickaboo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mickacoo > > > -- 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

1 0

Re: [Media-advisors] Mtg of San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission Tonite
by Jonathan Harris 13 Aug '10

13 Aug '10

2 1

Re: [Media-advisors] Mtg of San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission Tonite
by Jonathan Harris 13 Aug '10

13 Aug '10

2 1

FW: A quote that really touched me
by Elizabeth Y 13 Aug '10

13 Aug '10

Just sharing... -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Y <AdoptKings(a)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:10 AM To: MickaCoo(a)mickaboo.org Cc: Teresa Murphy <teresa(a)cavyspirit.com>; Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)earthlink.net>; Jonathan Harris <jonathanharris(a)earthlink.net>; Karen Watkins <karen.watkins(a)gmail.com>; Pamela Lee <pambudgie(a)yahoo.com> Subject: A quote that really touched me Hello- I was at the SF Animal Control & Welfare Commission tonight (as were Cheryl D and Barna and several Mickaboo volunteers among others) and guinea pig rescuer Teresa Murphy made a presentation that included a quote that I've seen before but not in its entirety. It is from Mahatma Ghandi and the part that was both new to me as well as especially moving said "The more helpless a creature is, the more it deserves protection from human cruelty." I have often wondered how I wound up being a pigeon rescuer and I think that is the answer. Elizabeth Y www.RescueReport.org

1 0

Mtg of San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission Tonite
by Karen Watkins 13 Aug '10

13 Aug '10

It was a smaller meeting but still lively. Teresa from CavySpirit presented a proposal for a "Pet Ready" certification program to the Commission. The commission liked the spirit of the cooperation in the certification program and it would be more palatable than a ban. Jonathan Harris and I spoke. Jonathan gave a wonderfully succinct analysis of the situation and addressed the fear that our grandkids won't be able to have pets. (If she had an amazon now , she could be sure her grandkids would have a pet.LOL.) I had a few issues such as online tests not assuring that the material will be implemented. I described the Mickaboo process and how even after all that, we still run into people who want to use Teflon pans. I mentioned the Petco legal judgment and the need for enforcement that an educational program won't provide. I also spoke about the Preferred Birds bird mill in Florida as several of the commissioners were still wondering if there are really bird mills. One of the speakers that followed me took offense at the use of the terms bird mills and puppy mills. She acted like I was talking about her when I mentioned only the facility in Florida. There were some wackos quoting Homeland Security memos about the IDA and compared the ban to Nazi Germany. I don't doubt that the IDA is on some terrorist lists. Someone from the Aviculture Society said she has waiting lists of people interested in birds so she wanted the shelter to call her and she can pick up the birds right away. She didn't seem to realize that the birds do get picked up. Channels 4 and 2 had reporters covering the meeting. I'm sure Jonathan, Elizabeth, Kim and Barna will have more to add when they get home. Pam was there too but had a conure to rescue. Yay, rescue!

3 3

Animal Welfare Commission Postponed Vote until Next Year!
by Karen Watkins 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

I went through my recording of the Ch.2 news and caught the pet ban segment. Apparently the meeting ended about 9:30pm with the commissioners postponing any decision until "the beginning of the year". Well, that gives more time to prepare and it won't be our busy season.

2 1

Re: [Media-advisors] FW: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip
by Elizabeth Y 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

Thank you everybody for your input. I've forwarded all of your responses to Philip. e -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Harris <jonathanharris(a)earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:23 AM To: Mickaboo media advisor team <media-advisors(a)mickaboo.org> Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] FW: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip (sorry if you get this message more than once; I've had email problems this morning.) I tend to agree with Philip, who has political experience. I don't know how this upcoming election might affect Supervisors' receptivity to a ban. But when times are tough, people tend to be less concerned about the welfare of other creatures, and politicians may be less willing to stick their necks out. Proposition 2 was passed in a more optimistic and generous climate than we are in today. And I agree with Marcy regarding the importance of showing the Supes there is broad public concern, which, frankly will require more education. To ordinary citizens, what is being proposed seems outrageous and absurd — as Rick French put it, a law prohibiting pet stores from selling pets. It's no surprise the SF Chronicle ridiculed the idea of a ban, nor that pet sellers and breeders were able to gather thousands of petition signatures in opposition. Their arguments are intuitive, common-sense, persuasive. Pet stores are good, ethical, neighborhood businesses. The owners and employees love birds. They have great experience and knowledge, which they share with their customers. They are in fact doing the education and guidance needed to ensure a happy relationship between bird and human. Since we are asking for a radical change, overturning a model of pet acquisition respected for generations (really for hundreds if not thousands of years), the burden of proof initially is ours. We have plenty of evidence proving both the magnitude of the problems and their severity (mistreatment and suffering of animals). But the public doesn't know it yet. There are stories appearing in books and magazines, papers, on network TV and the Web, but they're isolated and haven't fully sunk in. I believe they will — people will understand, as they've understood the cruelty of battery cages and puppy mills; but there needs to be more education to overcome people's naïve observations and these common-sense arguments. Another set of strategic questions: Do we even have potential allies on the Board? I have heard no names mentioned. How much weight does a recommendation from ACWC carry? There will be a lot of weight coming from the other side. Can we get further evidence, arguments, lobbying to the Supes? How much can THEY be educated? and how fast? What is the time line under which we must get something passed once something is recommended? It's a hard choice. Animals continue to suffer as we delay. But if we have not yet created the groundswell of public support (which doesn't mean a majority, but something significant beyond our own community) nor made allies on the Board, it might be better to hold back awhile to allow for that education to take place and build a larger coalition. Obviously, any delay also will allow sellers and breeders to ramp up their lobbying and PR, but ironically that will be to our advantage, since they will be bringing the issues to public attention. Then, our arguments only will become stronger as the truth comes out, as it must. I'm in this for the big prize, even if it means holding off pushing a City ban right now. I'm skeptical of a trial SPARC program. The pet stores oppose it and would resist it. Their hostility plus the initial practical problems of setting it up likely would mean that many people's experiences during the trial period would be frustrating, and the opposition to anything stronger (or even continuing SPARC) would increase and become more entrenched. In which case, what happens tonight? How can the issue be kept alive and strong without either overplaying our hand or looking weak? Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Y Sent: Aug 12, 2010 2:30 AM To: Mickaboo media advisor team Subject: [Media-advisors] FW: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip Thoughts? From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:32 PM To: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Cc: Marcy <SaveABunny(a)aol.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Rose Harris <harris.rose(a)att.net>; Elliot M. Katz DVM <emk(a)idausa.org>; Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>; Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org; jchick73(a)yahoo.com; Mira Tweti <miratweti(a)parrotpress.net>; Teresa Murphy <teresa(a)cavyspirit.com> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip A last minute heads up! Talks with ACC today pointed out an over looked important consideration. Political timing. This is crystal ball gazing but consider this; this is an important issue that conservatives will love to make fun of. "Looney San Francisco" What progressive Supervisor would risk taking it up three months before an election? What Supervisors would vote for it now?? There will be 5 new Supervisors in after November. Remember how the democrats blamed Newsom in 2004 advocating for gay marriage? Some attributed democratic losses linking that issue with democrats in general. After the election would be a time to get it through. I feel that steam roller energy for coming out an advocating for a ban. But if it doesn't go well with the Sups now the whole effort will be for naught. Part of our strategy must be proper timing for the best possible outcome. Even if the Sups passed it, they would need a veto proof number to over ride a possible mayoral veto. There is interest in adopting Teresa's SPARC concept for the interim period. Giving it a try. In the three years I've been on the ACWC I have grown more passionate about animal issues as I've learned more about the food and pet industrial complex. But I also want to actually help the animals. Let's wait for pushing for a ban until after the election. Thoughts? Comments? Philip On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Elizabeth Young wrote: a correction and another thought- CORRECTION: Moratorium: It also occured to me that a moratorium on pet sales until there are more qualified potential adopters waiting in line to adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there are surrenders might be a solution (removes the RESTRICTION when the cruelty stops). ANOTHER THOUGHT: What if it was illegal to BUY a pet in SF? This is crazy and unworkable for a whole bunch of reasons but what if pet stores had to have prominent signage in their stores that said buying a pet was illegal in SF because there is a pet overpopulation problem and it condemned innocent animals to homelessness and euthanasia as surplus and directed them to adopt from rescues and shelters instead. Would they still choose to sell? Would people still choose to buy? Most likely (and sadly) Yes & Yes. P.S. I'm not having any second thoughts or doubts, just thinking out loud. e On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> wrote: Moratorium: It also occured to me that a moratorium on pet sales until there are more qualified potential adopters waiting in line to adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there are surrenders might be a solution (removes the punishment when the cruelty stops). -- 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

FW: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip
by Elizabeth Y 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

Teresa's... -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Murphy <teresa(a)cavyspirit.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:11 PM To: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Cc: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Marcy <SaveABunny(a)aol.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Rose Harris <harris.rose(a)att.net>; Elliot M. Katz DVM <emk(a)idausa.org>; Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>; Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org; jchick73(a)yahoo.com; Mira Tweti <miratweti(a)parrotpress.net> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip Hi Philip, Well, one thing I've learned in the business world is timing is everything. Interesting additional information. I definitely agree on waiting for the push until after the election. Of course, I still think SPARC is a great idea, but in this circumstance, in a short amount of time, the only way to make it work is to enforce compliance city-wide -- still a challenge. But, the pet store contingency might be more compliant if it's the ban or this. I've already been looking at some solutions on the technical side of things to keep costs down but deliver the functionality. Will be ready to present and discuss it tomorrow. Cheers, Teresa On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Philip Gerrie wrote: A last minute heads up! Talks with ACC today pointed out an over looked important consideration. Political timing. This is crystal ball gazing but consider this; this is an important issue that conservatives will love to make fun of. "Looney San Francisco" What progressive Supervisor would risk taking it up three months before an election? What Supervisors would vote for it now?? There will be 5 new Supervisors in after November. Remember how the democrats blamed Newsom in 2004 advocating for gay marriage? Some attributed democratic losses linking that issue with democrats in general. After the election would be a time to get it through. I feel that steam roller energy for coming out an advocating for a ban. But if it doesn't go well with the Sups now the whole effort will be for naught. Part of our strategy must be proper timing for the best possible outcome. Even if the Sups passed it, they would need a veto proof number to over ride a possible mayoral veto. There is interest in adopting Teresa's SPARC concept for the interim period. Giving it a try. In the three years I've been on the ACWC I have grown more passionate about animal issues as I've learned more about the food and pet industrial complex. But I also want to actually help the animals. Let's wait for pushing for a ban until after the election. Thoughts? Comments? Philip On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Elizabeth Young wrote: a correction and another thought- CORRECTION: Moratorium: It also occured to me that a moratorium on pet sales until there are more qualified potential adopters waiting in line to adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there are surrenders might be a solution (removes the RESTRICTION when the cruelty stops). ANOTHER THOUGHT: What if it was illegal to BUY a pet in SF? This is crazy and unworkable for a whole bunch of reasons but what if pet stores had to have prominent signage in their stores that said buying a pet was illegal in SF because there is a pet overpopulation problem and it condemned innocent animals to homelessness and euthanasia as surplus and directed them to adopt from rescues and shelters instead. Would they still choose to sell? Would people still choose to buy? Most likely (and sadly) Yes & Yes. P.S. I'm not having any second thoughts or doubts, just thinking out loud. e On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> wrote: Moratorium: It also occured to me that a moratorium on pet sales until there are more qualified potential adopters waiting in line to adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there are surrenders might be a solution (removes the punishment when the cruelty stops). -- 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

FW: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip
by Elizabeth Y 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

Marcy's... -----Original Message----- From: SaveABunny(a)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:55 PM To: glassgerrie(a)gmail.com; adoptkings(a)gmail.com Cc: kflaherty(a)pacbell.net; pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com; harris.rose(a)att.net; emk(a)idausa.org; stephensfw(a)mindspring.com; Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org; jchick73(a)yahoo.com; miratweti(a)parrotpress.net; teresa(a)cavyspirit.com Subject: Re: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip As long as there is a strong chance of revisting a ban. I don't know enough about SF politics to give much feedback. Marcy Schaaf Founder, SaveABunny www.saveabunny.org www.saveabunny.etsy.com 415-388-2790 "A New Generation of Rabbit Rescue" Save A Bunny. Save A Life. In a message dated 8/11/2010 10:32:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, glassgerrie(a)gmail.com writes: A last minute heads up! Talks with ACC today pointed out an over looked important consideration. Political timing. This is crystal ball gazing but consider this; this is an important issue that conservatives will love to make fun of. "Looney San Francisco" What progressive Supervisor would risk taking it up three months before an election? What Supervisors would vote for it now?? There will be 5 new Supervisors in after November. Remember how the democrats blamed Newsom in 2004 advocating for gay marriage? Some attributed democratic losses linking that issue with democrats in general. After the election would be a time to get it through. I feel that steam roller energy for coming out an advocating for a ban. But if it doesn't go well with the Sups now the whole effort will be for naught. Part of our strategy must be proper timing for the best possible outcome. Even if the Sups passed it, they would need a veto proof number to over ride a possible mayoral veto. There is interest in adopting Teresa's SPARC concept for the interim period. Giving it a try. In the three years I've been on the ACWC I have grown more passionate about animal issues as I've learned more about the food and pet industrial complex. But I also want to actually help the animals. Let's wait for pushing for a ban until after the election. Thoughts? Comments? Philip On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Elizabeth Young wrote: a correction and another thought- CORRECTION: Moratorium: It also occured to me that a moratorium on pet sales until there are more qualified potential adopters waiting in line to adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there are surrenders might be a solution (removes the RESTRICTION when the cruelty stops). ANOTHER THOUGHT: What if it was illegal to BUY a pet in SF? This is crazy and unworkable for a whole bunch of reasons but what if pet stores had to have prominent signage in their stores that said buying a pet was illegal in SF because there is a pet overpopulation problem and it condemned innocent animals to homelessness and euthanasia as surplus and directed them to adopt from rescues and shelters instead. Would they still choose to sell? Would people still choose to buy? Most likely (and sadly) Yes & Yes. P.S. I'm not having any second thoughts or doubts, just thinking out loud. e On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> wrote: Moratorium: It also occured to me that a moratorium on pet sales until there are more qualified potential adopters waiting in line to adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there are surrenders might be a solution (removes the punishment when the cruelty stops). -- 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

FW: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip
by Elizabeth Y 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

Mira Tweti's response, FYI -----Original Message----- From: Mira Tweti <MiraTweti(a)CircleBlueProds.com> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:36 AM To: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Cc: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Marcy <SaveABunny(a)aol.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Rose Harris <harris.rose(a)att.net>; Elliot M. Katz DVM <emk(a)idausa.org>; Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>; Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org; jchick73(a)yahoo.com; Teresa Murphy <teresa(a)cavyspirit.com> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on banning pet sales from Philip Oh no! I veto waiting. First of all, it's a pet ban. It's not like you're trying to reinstate Prohibition. It's not a big enough issue to win or lose an election and if it gets media time it'll be a blurb like they do with Obamas stimulus grants going to some wacky projects. I'm sure it's true but they're a blip on the media radar and the public's. Everyone's worried about much bigger issues like keeping their homes and staying employed. Plus, you have no idea what you'll get with 5 new supervisors. They may not have an election to worry about but being in new positions they're likely to be skittish about approving something that's got some heat on it. Does the commission have to send it to the current supervisors blind? Can you check with any of them to see where they'd stand if it's approved without mentioning election pressures to get them nervous too? I say don't second guess the future and don't decide based on fear. Neither have ever worked for me and I've been in similar situations with exposes' and the subjects I'm exposing and newspaper editors & publishers. Worrying about a negative consequence has only ever shown me that I can't predict the future. If you approve it now and they don't can you amend it and resubmit it to the new sups after Nov? If so, that's even more of a reason not to wait. But even if not, keep in mind that you were very confident about the supervisors' looking favorably on this ban when we spoke. You said you were encouraged to be bold and do something representative of San Francisco's tradition of being ahead of the curve. Please don't fall short of that and don't fall short for the animals. They're the ones that will pay the price of your decision. If you can help them in a big way, and the commission can by approving a ban, that's your real responsibility. Reading crystal balls isn't part of the job requirement. Stay true to your goals for the smalls and to your mission. I'd veto anything short of that. Mira Mira Tweti Executive Director Blue Planet Film Fest Circle Blue Productions BluePlanetFilmFest.com 6200 Vista del Mar Suite 313 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 310-574-0911 home/office 310-508-3750 cell MiraTweti(a)CircleBlueProds.com On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Philip Gerrie wrote: A last minute heads up! Talks with ACC today pointed out an over looked important consideration. Political timing. This is crystal ball gazing but consider this; this is an important issue that conservatives will love to make fun of. "Looney San Francisco" What progressive Supervisor would risk taking it up three months before an election? What Supervisors would vote for it now?? There will be 5 new Supervisors in after November. Remember how the democrats blamed Newsom in 2004 advocating for gay marriage? Some attributed democratic losses linking that issue with democrats in general. After the election would be a time to get it through. I feel that steam roller energy for coming out an advocating for a ban. But if it doesn't go well with the Sups now the whole effort will be for naught. Part of our strategy must be proper timing for the best possible outcome. Even if the Sups passed it, they would need a veto proof number to over ride a possible mayoral veto. There is interest in adopting Teresa's SPARC concept for the interim period. Giving it a try. In the three years I've been on the ACWC I have grown more passionate about animal issues as I've learned more about the food and pet industrial complex. But I also want to actually help the animals. Let's wait for pushing for a ban until after the election. Thoughts? Comments? Philip On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Elizabeth Young wrote: a correction and another thought- CORRECTION: Moratorium: It also occured to me that a moratorium on pet sales until there are more qualified potential adopters waiting in line to adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there are surrenders might be a solution (removes the RESTRICTION when the cruelty stops). ANOTHER THOUGHT: What if it was illegal to BUY a pet in SF? This is crazy and unworkable for a whole bunch of reasons but what if pet stores had to have prominent signage in their stores that said buying a pet was illegal in SF because there is a pet overpopulation problem and it condemned innocent animals to homelessness and euthanasia as surplus and directed them to adopt from rescues and shelters instead. Would they still choose to sell? Would people still choose to buy? Most likely (and sadly) Yes & Yes. P.S. I'm not having any second thoughts or doubts, just thinking out loud. e On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> wrote: Moratorium: It also occured to me that a moratorium on pet sales until there are more qualified potential adopters waiting in line to adopt animals from shelters and rescues than there are surrenders might be a solution (removes the punishment when the cruelty stops). -- 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