June 2011 - Media-advisors

RFC re. Web / moratium announcement
by Vincent J. Hrovat 16 Aug '11

16 Aug '11

Hi, This topic was brought up in discuss list and I am bringing it over here for focus. With all due respect to the person who was concerned that people will think that we are going out of business when they read the notice about our moratorium, I cannot imagine how any literate and rational person who reads that could infer that we are going out of business. The notice talks about our desire for long term success. It says that we are "temporarily suspending intake" and "not closing our doors forever" and that we are focused on building infrastructure. It talks about all of the birds that we currently have in our system. In fact, I think that the current version is pretty good and that, if we specifically said that we are NOT going out of business, it would cause more concern! It's possible that a few people misread it or misunderstood it, and perhaps adding a few more points for emphasis would help. Of course, if people don't read it or are just not all there we can only do so much about it! On that basis, I am recommending some nuanced changes, mostly additions to the current version; please see attached. In the recommended version I add a sentence about how many birds we have and say that we continue to care for them. I also added a few sentences about our "doing our best" to triage in the most needy birds, and added a plug for donations at the end. Word count on the proposed version is 346 compared to 196 for the original, which might be a concern. Please review and let me know what you think. Thanks. Vincent J. Hrovat

2 1

Re: [Media-advisors] Rio follow-up
by Jonathan Harris 16 Jul '11

16 Jul '11

3 4

parrot trade
by Michelle Yesney 22 Jun '11

22 Jun '11

Just an FYI - the next time we need a reference for how damaging parrot breeders are, there is an article posted on For the Birds' website that has some interesting information: http://www.forthebirdsdvm.com/pages/the-role-of-the-avian-veterinarian-in-c…

3 7

Re: [Media-advisors] ALERT - This morning's KQED Forum on SFACWC proposal
by Jonathan Harris 22 Jun '11

22 Jun '11

1 0

ALERT - This morning's KQED Forum on SFACWC proposal
by Jonathan Harris 22 Jun '11

22 Jun '11

2 1

Editorial about Pet Sale Ban in the Sunday SF Chron
by Elizabeth Young 20 Jun '11

20 Jun '11

-- Elizabeth * * *PLEASE HELP MICKACOO WIN $25K BY VOTING EVERYDAY IN JUNE AT* *http://www.refresheverything.com/mickacoopigeonanddoverescue AND TEXTING 106711 TO 73774!* * * 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] Editorial about Pet Sale Ban in the Sunday SF Chron
by Jonathan Harris 20 Jun '11

20 Jun '11

1 0

Reactions to SFACWC proposal
by Jonathan Harris 17 Jun '11

17 Jun '11

I've been monitoring response to the Matier-Ross piece on the ACWC proposal and am most struck not by the overwhelming negativity of it, nor even its highly personal nature (can you say "Lynch Mob"?), but how little of it has to do really with the proposal itself. Much seems to be coming from people who are broadly and vocally anti-progressive, anti-government, and, I'm sorry, often bigots ("bigotry" = ignorant hatred). Many of the 350 postings I've read show complete ignorance of the facts of (1) the proposal, (2) the conrete situation it seeks to address, and (3) the structure of SF city government, as well as a screamingly visceral hatred of San Francisco and its culture. Mostly they seem to be using this proposal as a club to mock and beat up on the city and on progressives. There are a few legitimate points they have raised. I fear. e.g., the inclusion of fish (with which I agree morally) is too counterintuitive for many people to understand, and it offers an easy way to target the entire proposal. I notice the near absence of criticism of the proposed ordinance as applied to any other animals besides fish. Perhaps we can use that to our advantage down the road. At any rate I'm waiting for the steam to dissipate a bit before responding. But we already have put out a press release on this, so we need to be prepared. Supposedly there was a story on the Channel 2 news last night. I don't have a TV. Did anyone see it? If you have a link, could you share it? I wrote a serious letter to Channel 2 about their slanted coverage and inaccurate, inflammatory use of language last year. If they did the same stuff again this year, they're going to get a serious phone call. Jonathan -----Original Message----- >From: Jonathan Harris <jonathanharris(a)earthlink.net> >Sent: Jun 15, 2011 7:54 AM >To: Mickaboo media advisor team <media-advisors(a)mickaboo.org> >Subject: Find some old clothing; splattering mud to follow soon. > > >... and ... They're off!! (57 comments so far) > >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2011/06/14/BA661JTO52.… > > >SF Animal Control Commission seeks ban on goldfish >Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnist >Wednesday, June 15, 2011 > >San Francisco's ever-active Animal Control and Welfare Commission has renewed its push for a pet sale ban in the city - only this time, it even covers goldfish. > >The idea is to put the squeeze on puppy and kitten mills that supply pet stores, and to discourage "impulse buys" of hamsters and other small pets that often wind up being dumped at shelters. > >But goldfish, guppies and tropical fish? > >"Most fish in aquariums are either mass bred" under inhumane conditions "or taken from the wild," commission member Philip Gerrie said. That leads to "devastation of tropical fish from places like Southeast Asia," he said. > >The proposed ban, which the commission just adopted after a year of study, was expanded to cover animal breeders as well as pet stores. As you might expect, it has local merchants like Ocean Aquarium owner Justin Hau dumbfounded. > >"The city is taking more and more control," Hau said. "They are very stupid." > >Commission President Sally Stephens, who opposed the ban because it would include small animal-breeding operations, says it's up to the Board of Supervisors to make the final call. > >"All this is, is a recommendation," Stephens said. > >Sometimes the supes act on the commission's recommendations, such as when they approved a ban on declawing cats. And sometimes they don't, such as when the animal panel suggested introducing birth control pills into birdseed to solve the city's pigeon problem. > >Supervisor Eric Mar, who introduced a measure Tuesday to keep big pet store chains out of the Richmond District, was noncommittal about the commission's latest proposal, saying only that the board needed to "look carefully." > >On the other hand, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd wasted no time predicting that "this is another Animal Welfare idea that will end up in the dustbin of history and go absolutely nowhere."

1 0

Re: [Media-advisors] website message - drafting continued
by pblau＠sonic.net 16 Jun '11

16 Jun '11

I think it's good! On Thu 06/16/11 7:19 PM , "Vincent J. Hrovat" wrote: I assume that someone would have spoken up by now if they did not want to make this change and/or if they had any issues with it. I will email the tech team asking them to make this change at 10PM (2.5+ hours away) unless I hear from anybody. Thanks. --VH From: media-advisors-bounces(a)mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Vincent J. Hrovat Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:35 AM To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team' Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] website message - drafting continued The current version of this verbiage has hyperlinks to our “List of Other Rescues,” “How to Help,” and “Contact Us” sections. I assume that the new version would use the same links in the same places. So, are we set to go on this? Can we ask tech team to do the update? Thanks. --VH From: media-advisors-bounces(a)mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Karen Watkins Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:11 PM To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team' Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] website message - drafting continued I like this version. When it goes on the website, can it be hyperlinked to the page with the list of rescues? From: media-advisors-bounces(a)mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Vincent J. Hrovat Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:39 PM To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team' Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] website message - drafting continued Please see attached, with the following change: >We are not closing our doors forever - just for as long as is necessary Is now: >We regret that we’re forced to do this and we will not be turning away birds any longer than necessary Everything else is the same as on Pam’s version 2. --VH From: media-advisors-bounces(a)mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Michelle Yesney Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:20 PM To: Mickaboo media advisor team Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] website message - drafting continued Actually, I don't care for the phrase "closing our doors" at all, and would prefer that we say we "will not be turning away new intakes for any longer than is absolutely necessary", or something similar.

1 0

website message - drafting continued
by Lee, Pamela A 16 Jun '11

16 Jun '11

To Vinny's point, I think our full message needs to "fit" on the same webpage, without the need to page down to see the rest of the message. I've been part of an eCommerce group for years, and it's proven that messages "above the fold" are more effective than those "below" the fold. Attached is a re-draft to achieve that purpose without (I hope) losing too much of the punch which Vinny artfully created. It's a thought - I invite further artistic help! -Pam <<website_msg_draft.doc>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited. Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Sender. Subject to applicable law, Sender may intercept, monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems and may produce any such EC to regulators, law enforcement, in litigation and as required by law. The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses. References to "Sender" are references to any subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. Securities and Insurance Products: * Are Not FDIC Insured * Are Not Bank Guaranteed * May Lose Value * Are Not a Bank Deposit * Are Not a Condition to Any Banking Service or Activity * Are Not Insured by Any Federal Government Agency. Attachments that are part of this EC may have additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you should read. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Sender you consent to the foregoing.

5 7