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-----
