- Media-advisors - mickaboo.org

Fwd: "No flock, no flight, no fair"
by Elizabeth Young 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

Shared this with Commissioner Philip's work group and am sharing it with you, too. Does anyone know anything about the Avian Welfare Coalition? Could they be a resource that we're underutilizing? Elizabeth ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:26 PM Subject: "No flock, no flight, no fair" To: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com> Cc: SaveABunny(a)aol.com, Rose Harris <harris.rose(a)att.net>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk(a)idausa.org>, Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>, Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>, Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org, jchick73(a)yahoo.com, Teresa Murphy < teresa(a)cavyspirit.com>, Jonathan Harris <jonathanharris(a)earthlink.net> Hello- I'm still in pain from having to listen to so much nonsense about "no such thing as bird mills" and there not being a bird overpopulation crisis. I've attached some links to a recent news story, a "No Flock, No Flight, No Fair" flyer and several links for more info. http://www.kptv.com/video/19491292/index.html http://www.avianwelfare.org/issues/marketing.htm http://www.avianwelfare.org/ http://www.avianwelfare.org/links/organizations.htm Elizabeth On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>wrote: > I agree with Marcy's comments. > > I suggest getting the word out about the next ACWC meeting coming up this > Thursday at 5:30 room 408 at City Hall to those that would like to see a > ban. Last month the Animal Company was out in numbers. We should also stop > by local pet supply stores to hear what they think and for them to possibly > come to speak at the meeting. > > The phone book has listings of pet stores and pet supply stores. > > Thanks, Philip > > > On Aug 6, 2010, at 9:54 PM, SaveABunny(a)aol.com wrote: > > HI all, > After sitting in on the meeting today with the pet store owners trying to > determine if a compromise was possible versus a complete ban on the sale of > animals, here's my impressions (for what they are worth): > > > The owner of the Animal Company is essentially not really willing > to compromise. He and his friend, Claudia from The Basic Bird in Berkeley, > are both very antagonistic, looking for confrontation and eager to distort > facts and statements to their favor. While they say they agree to > "education' they are not really willing to do anything different, since they > already feel like they know it all and don't want rescues "telling them what > to do". They feel that putting up a flyer in their store about a rescue > group is doing enough. > Recommendation: If possible isolate them. Position them as hardliners vs. > other more workable stores. These two are the "leaders" and the people who > are causing the majority of ill will and creating PR opportunities for > themselves as the victims. > > > Personally, I think it's a big mistake to focus so much time and energy > on trying to placate the very few stores that DO sell animals. The majority > of stores in SF do not sell animals. This very important point is being lost > in the mind of the public and the media as it seems like a large number of > small businesses are being penalized somehow and that's simply not true. > > Kat, is it possible to get some statistics on the number of stores that do > or do not sell animals? > > While a workable compromise with education would be nice, I do not think > that will happen without some sort of oversight---based on the lack of > current educational info being given out by these stores. Just because > someone has been in business for 30 years, it doesn't equate to knowing > updated or proper care for the animals. > > In summary, I think a strong strategy would be to approach the majority of > stores that do NOT sell animals to get them to help back a ban. Being able > to demonstrate that it's possible to be profitable as a pet store without > selling animals is key and is an excellent discussion to use in PR. Nothing > would be more powerful than having the backing of a significant number of > pet store owners in SF. > > Thanks again everyone for being such a great advocate for the animals, > > 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. > > > > > -- Elizabeth Until they all have homes, don't buy, don't breed- adopt. www.RescueReport.org <http://www.rescuereport.org/> www.MickaCoo.org <http://www.mickacoo.org/> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0 -- Elizabeth Until they all have homes, don't buy, don't breed- adopt. www.RescueReport.org www.MickaCoo.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0

3 2

Re: [Media-advisors] URGENT Question about Mickaboo
by Jonathan Harris 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

2 1

Re: [Media-advisors] URGENT Question about Mickaboo
by Jonathan Harris 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

1 0

Along the lines of the ban on sales of birds.....
by Patricia Blau 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

.... I am now fostering a little budgie, Simon, whose surrender papers say he was bought at PETCO 5 MONTHS AGO, fed only seed, and has now been unceremoniously dumped on the rescue world. Hmmm... could it have been an impulse purchase???????????

2 1

URGENT Question about Mickaboo
by Elizabeth Y 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

See below -----Original Message----- From: Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:18 PM To: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>; SaveABunny(a)aol.com Cc: Rose Harris <harris.rose(a)att.net>; Elliot M. Katz DVM <emk(a)idausa.org>; Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>; Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org; jchick73(a)yahoo.com; Teresa Murphy <teresa(a)cavyspirit.com> Subject: Re: Working Group Update August 8, 7 pm FYI, I just heard from Ellen French that they're getting threatening phone calls both at their store and on their unlisted home phone. I think she said three since Thursday. The threats are that they will burn down either the store or the home, that the caller knows where they live. They've filed police reports with both SF and East Bay police (they live in the East Bay) about the phone calls. If you hear anything about who might be responsible, please call the cops and tell them. Threatening phone calls are absolutely unacceptable, no exceptions, not to mention highly immoral. Elizabeth, they also said a woman who gave her name as Virginia called their store today and said she was with Mickaboo and she wanted to buy a lovebird from their store. Do you have any idea who that might be? I'm assuming this too was a harassing phone call and not from Mickaboo since I can't imagine why Mickaboo would be trying to get birds from a store. Or did they misunderstand the phone call and were you trying to place a lovebird with them? Needless to say, they believe the phone call really came from Mickaboo and it was intended to harass them. Any ideas who might be behind this? -- Sally

6 7

Re: [Media-advisors] URGENT Question about Mickaboo
by Elizabeth Y 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

Would love that, thank you. And welcome home. -----Original Message----- From: Michelle Yesney <msyesney(a)gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 11:02 PM To: Mickaboo media advisor team <media-advisors(a)mickaboo.org> Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] URGENT Question about Mickaboo I think everyone is correct. If you would like, Elizabeth, I would be happy to respond to Sally's email in an official capacity. (I'm hoo-ome). On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> wrote: See below From: Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:18 PM To: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>; SaveABunny(a)aol.com Cc: Rose Harris <harris.rose(a)att.net>; Elliot M. Katz DVM <emk(a)idausa.org>; Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>; Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org; jchick73(a)yahoo.com; Teresa Murphy <teresa(a)cavyspirit.com> Subject: Re: Working Group Update August 8, 7 pm FYI, I just heard from Ellen French that they're getting threatening phone calls both at their store and on their unlisted home phone. I think she said three since Thursday. The threats are that they will burn down either the store or the home, that the caller knows where they live. They've filed police reports with both SF and East Bay police (they live in the East Bay) about the phone calls. If you hear anything about who might be responsible, please call the cops and tell them. Threatening phone calls are absolutely unacceptable, no exceptions, not to mention highly immoral. Elizabeth, they also said a woman who gave her name as Virginia called their store today and said she was with Mickaboo and she wanted to buy a lovebird from their store. Do you have any idea who that might be? I'm assuming this too was a harassing phone call and not from Mickaboo since I can't imagine why Mickaboo would be trying to get birds from a store. Or did they misunderstand the phone call and were you trying to place a lovebird with them? Needless to say, they believe the phone call really came from Mickaboo and it was intended to harass them. Any ideas who might be behind this? -- Sally

1 0

Re: [Media-advisors] City and County of San Francisco v. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. et al, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV811807
by Marthak816＠gmail.com 08 Aug '10

08 Aug '10

Why just 18 months? -----Original Message----- Date: Saturday, August 07, 2010 9:48:36 pm To: "Mickaboo media advisor team" <media-advisors(a)mickaboo.org> From: "Mary Long" <atechi2(a)yahoo.com> Subject: [Media-advisors] City and County of San Francisco v. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. et al, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV811807 This is the earlier (SF) Petco Lawsuit that I was thinking of: City Suit Cites Animal Neglect in Petco Stores SAN FRANCISCO (May 27, 2004)-City Attorney Dennis Herrera today announced a settlement of the City's two-year-old litigation against PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. that includes unprecedented court-ordered injunctions against the San Diego-based animal supplies retailer. In addition to a $50,000 payment to the City within the next 90 days, PETCO has agreed to abide for the next 18 months by tough, enforceable injunctions to prevent a pattern of cruel and illegal mistreatment of animals that the City alleged occurred in the company's San Francisco stores over a period of three years. "Today's settlement sends a powerful message to local animal care agencies nationwide that they have a forceful, activist role to play in preventing the abuse, neglect and mistreatment of pets at the hands of local retailers," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera. "Whether it's for a Fortune 1000 powerhouse like PETCO or an independent pet shop in your local community, laws intended to protect animals from inhumane treatment have teeth-and today's settlement with PETCO proves it." According to the Stipulated Injunction and Settlement Order submitted for signature to Santa Clara Superior Court today, PETCO will abide by the following provisions over the next year-and-a-half:Specialized training provided to all new employees in PETCO's San Francisco stores within three weeks of their start of employment. San Francisco's Animal Care & Control Department will review and comment upon the training materials provided to all San Francisco PETCO employees. * Upon completion of the specialized training program, each PETCO employee must sign a verifiable certification of training, which must be SFACC may review upon request. * PETCO will refer all sick or injured companion animals to medical care. * PETCO must designate a managerial or executive level employee at PETCO's corporate headquarters as a contact for San Francisco's Animal Care & Control Department regarding any issue pertaining to the care of animals in their San Francisco stores. All calls must be returned within 48-hours, and PETCO assures that all outstanding issues will be resolved quickly and professionally. * PETCO will ensure that San Francisco has a regional manager contact at all times, and will inform San Francisco if this person changes at any time. * Reviews of all PETCO's animals in San Francisco stores by an independent veterinarian selected from a list of mutually agreeable practitioners nominated by both parties. Herrera filed suit against PETCO in June 2002, originally seeking to permanently enjoin the retailer from live animal sales in San Francisco after the company repeatedly ignored warnings and citations from San Francisco's Animal Care & Control Department about its inhumane and illegal treatment of small pets at its 1685 Bryant Street and 1591 Sloat Boulevard locations. According to the City's complaint, Animal Care & Control inspectors and PETCO's own customers documented numerous instances animal cruelty over a period of three years, including sick and dying animals kept in freezers; untreated animals with contagious diseases; animals left in unsanitary enclosures without water; cages overcrowded with mice; freezers filled with dead birds; and reptiles and fish left dead in display tanks. PETCO-which operates 654 stores in 43 states and the District of Columbia-reported $1.65 billion in net sales for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2004 in its "Form 10-K" annual report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "Today's settlement would not have been possible without the continuing good work of San Francisco's Animal Care and Control Department," Herrera said. "And I'm thankful to all the inspectors and administrators who helped make this injunction possible." "Although saddened that we had to take legal action against PETCO, we are very pleased with the settlement and feel confident that PETCO will adhere to the mandates of this injunction," said Carl Friedman, director of San Francisco's Animal Care & Control Department. "Score this one as a victory for all the companion animals that are housed and sold by pet stores." The case is City and County of San Francisco v. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. et al, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. CV811807. June 20th, 2002 - San Francisco City Attorney Denis Herrera has filed a lawsuit against Petco Animal Supplies Inc., one of the nation's leading pet retailers. The suit seeks a court injunction prohibiting animal sales by Petco stores in the city of San Francisco. Herrera alleges Petco has ignored citations and warnings by city health inspectors since 1999 and that the company's San Francisco stores are responsible for scores of animal deaths. "Petco has proven that it is not capable of caring for the animals it sells in a humane manner. If they can't treat living things with care and consideration, they sure shouldn't be in the business of selling pets," Herrera said. The suit charges Petco with engaging in unfair business practices, creating a public nuisance, and failing to obtain a city permit. It also outlines numerous documented violations at Petco's two locations in the city, 1685 Bryant and 1591 Sloat. The violations cited include instances of sick and dying animals kept in a freezer, toads cooked to death on the heated floors of their enclosures, animals with untreated contagious illnesses, other animals living in crowded and unsanitary enclosures without water, cages overcrowded with mice, freezers filled with dead birds and reptiles, and numerous dead fish in display tanks. While this is the first lawsuit brought against Petco Inc., four Virginia store managers were charged with animal cruelty in 1999 after animal wardens found dirty conditions and dehydrated animals, including some dead lizards, inside their store. The state of Nevada has also filed criminal charges against two Petco stores for mistreatment of animals. Petco Boycott In addition to the charges brought by the city of San Francisco, Petco is facing a nationwide boycott by animal welfare groups. The groups claim that animals in Petco stores are "kept in filthy, overcrowded environments, often without adequate shelter, food, water, or mental stimulus for their species." And that employees "leave sick or injured animals to suffer and die..."

2 1

Re: [Media-advisors] URGENT Question about Mickaboo
by tammyazzaro＠gmail.com 08 Aug '10

08 Aug '10

Pardon my cynicism but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this is a play for more sympathy. All they've ever had in their favor is the fact that they will lose their livelihood if this passes and I could see them playing the pity card heavily at this point. tammy Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone ----- Reply message ----- From: "Elizabeth Y" <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 7:55 pm Subject: [Media-advisors] URGENT Question about Mickaboo To: "Mickaboo media advisor team" <media-advisors(a)mickaboo.org> See below -----Original Message----- From: Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:18 PM To: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>; SaveABunny(a)aol.com Cc: Rose Harris <harris.rose(a)att.net>; Elliot M. Katz DVM <emk(a)idausa.org>; Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>; Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>; Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>; Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org; jchick73(a)yahoo.com; Teresa Murphy <teresa(a)cavyspirit.com> Subject: Re: Working Group Update August 8, 7 pm FYI, I just heard from Ellen French that they're getting threatening phone calls both at their store and on their unlisted home phone. I think she said three since Thursday. The threats are that they will burn down either the store or the home, that the caller knows where they live. They've filed police reports with both SF and East Bay police (they live in the East Bay) about the phone calls. If you hear anything about who might be responsible, please call the cops and tell them. Threatening phone calls are absolutely unacceptable, no exceptions, not to mention highly immoral. Elizabeth, they also said a woman who gave her name as Virginia called their store today and said she was with Mickaboo and she wanted to buy a lovebird from their store. Do you have any idea who that might be? I'm assuming this too was a harassing phone call and not from Mickaboo since I can't imagine why Mickaboo would be trying to get birds from a store. Or did they misunderstand the phone call and were you trying to place a lovebird with them? Needless to say, they believe the phone call really came from Mickaboo and it was intended to harass them. Any ideas who might be behind this? -- Sally

2 1

What I responded re: URGENT Mickaboo question
by Elizabeth Young 08 Aug '10

08 Aug '10

FYI, Mickaboo is highly respected and regarded amongst this group and they think it is more likely the PIJAC side of the world doing something like this. See below for what I responded re: URGENT Mickaboo question e ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM Subject: RE: Working Group Update August 8, 7 pm To: Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>, SaveABunny(a)aol.com, glassgerrie(a)gmail.com Cc: harris.rose(a)att.net, emk(a)idausa.org, pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com, kflaherty(a)pacbell.net, Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org, jchick73(a)yahoo.com, teresa(a)cavyspirit.com, Michelle Yesney <msyesney(a)gmail.com> I can't imagine anyone in Mickaboo doing either type call. Sometimes we get calls about sick birds for sale and in some cases a volunteer will go to buy the bird (if seller won't pursue vet care) but we usually don't call and we don't identify ourselves as Mickaboo. I've posed the questions to Mickaboo and will let you know what I learn. We do have at least one volunteer named Virginia but I don't see her calling to buy a lovebird. My first thought was same as Marcy's. We're too frickin busy helping unwanted pets to have time to play such games even if we wanted too. And we don't -- 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

More on crank calls
by Elizabeth Young 08 Aug '10

08 Aug '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:11 PM Subject: Re: Working Group Update August 8, 7 pm To: Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com> Cc: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie(a)gmail.com>, SaveABunny(a)aol.com, Rose Harris < harris.rose(a)att.net>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk(a)idausa.org>, Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com>, Kim Flaherty <kflaherty(a)pacbell.net>, Kat.Brown(a)sfgov.org, jchick73(a)yahoo.com, Teresa Murphy < teresa(a)cavyspirit.com> Sally, I would think that this sort of thing is far more likely to come from the pet sales side of things, or maybe PIJAC. They are the ones who stand to gain an advantage from it, using it to label animal rights issues as ones supported only by a bunch of dangerous nuts. Ellen French is Rick's wife? Pam On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Sally Stephens <stephensfw(a)mindspring.com>wrote: > FYI, I just heard from Ellen French that they're getting threatening phone > calls both at their store and on their unlisted home phone. I think she said > three since Thursday. The threats are that they will burn down either the > store or the home, that the caller knows where they live. They've filed > police reports with both SF and East Bay police (they live in the East Bay) > about the phone calls. If you hear anything about who might be responsible, > please call the cops and tell them. Threatening phone calls are absolutely > unacceptable, no exceptions, not to mention highly immoral. > > Elizabeth, they also said a woman who gave her name as Virginia called > their store today and said she was with Mickaboo and she wanted to buy a > lovebird from their store. Do you have any idea who that might be? I'm > assuming this too was a harassing phone call and not from Mickaboo since I > can't imagine why Mickaboo would be trying to get birds from a store. Or did > they misunderstand the phone call and were you trying to place a lovebird > with them? Needless to say, they believe the phone call really came from > Mickaboo and it was intended to harass them. Any ideas who might be behind > this? > -- Sally > -- Elizabeth Until they all have homes, don't buy, don't breed- adopt. www.RescueReport.org www.MickaCoo.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0

1 0