- Media-advisors - mickaboo.org

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

Fwd: A Letter from Mickaboo's Founding Director & Some Facts about Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue
by Elizabeth Young 23 Jul '10

23 Jul '10

There. Now I feel better. I sent this to LA Times' Maria (and yes Vinny- that is the reporter- thank you for the links). ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:04 PM Subject: A Letter from Mickaboo's Founding Director & Some Facts about Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue To: Maria.LaGanga(a)latimes.com Cc: Tammy Azzaro <tammyazzaro(a)gmail.com>, Michelle Yesney < msyesney(a)gmail.com> Hello, Maria- Thank you ever so much for making time to interview me today about the plight of homeless birds and Mickaboo's support for the proposed ban on pet sales in SF. As much as I enjoy speaking as a Mickaboo volunteer, I also fear having just *my* words speak for such an important organization as Mickaboo. Below, I've pasted a letter from our founding director, Tammy Azzaro (cc'd) as is our CEO Michelle Yesney. They are true leaders within Mickaboo. I just happened to attend that SF ACWC meeting on 6/10! And, below that, I've pasted a response to some false assertions made by pet sellers and breeders that was written by another Mickaboo volunteer, Jonathan Harris. Please don't hesitate to give me a call (or to reach out to Michelle and Tammy) for any follow up info. Unwanted and homeless pets can't speak up for themselves so they need others to do it for them. All best wishes, Elizabeth *Letter from Founding Director* My name is Tammy Azzaro. I am a founder and director of Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue and a Registered Veterinary Technician in California. Mickaboo is an all-volunteer non profit bird rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming organization. We take in the abandoned, unwanted and surrendered birds from individuals, pet stores, shelters and veterinarians when the birds need medical care, socialization and placement. I wanted to write and express my support of the proposed ban on pet sales in San Francisco. San Francisco has always been at the forefront of positive change so I am thrilled at the prospect of "my" city adopting such a progressive policy. I know there have been a lot of arguments from local pet store owners who will be financially impacted if this ban takes effect. However, the positive economic impact this ban will have on government run shelters which often end up with unwanted and/or abandoned pets can not be overlooked. It will definitely have a positive impact on our rescue intake numbers. When I started Mickaboo Rescue nearly 15 years ago, we were dealing with approximately 25-30 birds per year going through our system. Now, we have hundreds of homeless birds and in 2009 we took in over 400 birds, most of which originally came from pet stores. Also, at that time, it was very rare for us to get in the larger species like Macaws, African Greys and Amazon Parrots. Now, due to the rampant availability of these species at pet stores driving their monetary value down and the ease with which anyone can purchase one through a pet store setting, we have hundreds of those larger species coming in annually as well. Many of these birds have been neglected or abused to the point of excessive screaming, aggression and self mutilation. You can see the sheer number of homeless birds in our organization alone on our website: www.mickaboo.com Many people know about the horrors of puppy mills, the negative effects such places can have on the socialization and medical health of dogs and the huge over-population problem most California cities have with cats and dogs. However, not many people see bird over-population as a problem. I can attest to the fact that bird over-population IS a problem and is getting worse every year. Mickaboo works through a network of dedicated foster homes and we can not keep up with the constant need for homes. We have to prioritize the sick, injured and shelter birds and we have to regularly turn away healthy, well socialized birds due to lack of space in our foster system. If this law passes, it will stop the flood that has been building in San Francisco over the past decade. If we do not do something to protect these special animals, we will see more and more end up at shelters and being euthanized due to lack of space. Although birds are smaller than most dogs and cats and take up less space at shelters, their care requires more specialized knowledge so the pool of potential homes is smaller. Also, their life-span is much longer than most other pet animals so that makes it much more difficult to secure them a lifelong home. If SF adopts this new ban, I can assure you there will still be plenty of birds in the shelter and rescue systems for folks who want to add a feathered friend to their family. We can provide data that shows the number of birds we have available for adoption now vs. just several years ago to show the staggering increase which will only get worse over time. As a long-time rescue worker, bird lover and San Francisco native, I ask that you please support the pet store sales ban. This ban does NOT mean 'no pets' for San Franciscans---what it means is 'homes' for those we already have in our shelter systems. Sincerely, Tammy Azzaro, RVT Director, Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue ---- *Some Facts about Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue and the Crisis of Unwanted Birds* A great deal of misinformation is being spread about the growing number of homeless, unwanted birds in the Bay Area. Since the San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission first mentioned adding small animals, including birds, to a proposed ban on the sale of dogs and cats in the city, a coalition made up mostly of breeders and pet sellers has attempted to dismiss the problem. Some in that group also have tried to discredit the organization whose representatives brought it to the commission's attention, Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue. In testimony before the commission, in letters, flyers, and emails, opponents to the ban have distorted and misrepresented the practices and purpose of this nationally respected rescue group, while denying the existence of any crisis in unwanted birds and trying to obscure its root causes. By their account, hardly any homeless or unwanted birds exist here (or anywhere else in the US). The crisis, they say, is an illusion created by rescue groups like Mickaboo for our own purposes. Mickaboo's agenda, they claim, is to profit from the adoption fees we charge; pet stores — which offer customers greater choice — are "competitors" for bird sales, and Mickaboo wants to destroy these independent businesses, limiting people's access to birds. They also claim Mickaboo's "high" fees and "burdensome" adoption procedures are what create any appearance of a crisis by discouraging adoption and producing a backlog of unadopted birds. They portray Mickaboo as a "radical Animal Rights group" whose ultimate goal is nothing less than the complete prohibition of pet ownership. Besides being silly, this narrative is false from start to finish. Some parts actually contradict others (why should we want to prohibit pet ownership if our goal is profit from people adopting our birds? Why do we have such a burdensome process if we are trying to complete with stores that sell birds to anyone who walks in the door?). None of it withstands any comparison with reality. But it is not simply inaccurate, it is dangerously wrong in diverting attention away from the real, emerging crisis in our city and around the country. If you care about animal welfare or your rights to have healthy, happy companion animals, please compare their misstatements with the facts. FALSE: There is no crisis of homeless birds. Their numbers in shelters are insignificant compared to impounded dogs and cats. THE TRUTH: There is a huge and growing crisis of unwanted birds. It has taken four centuries for the numbers of homeless dogs and cats to reach the levels they have in America today. The explosion of domestic parrot populations (now estimated at some 40–50 million in US homes) has occurred only in the past 20 years, driven by the rise of large-scale, industrial breeders and pet retailers in the 1990s. Even small parrots like cockatiels can live 30 years, larger species 50–100 years, but their human companions often tire of them long before that. As people who purchased birds on impulse confront the difficulties and cost of caring for these complex, demanding, essentially wild animals, many are relinquishing them, sometimes illegally releasing or simply abandoning them. Most of these birds never reach shelters, dying from untreated illnesses and neglect at home or from starvation or predation when released. The problem has worsened during the current housing crisis and recession, as people losing their homes are simply abandoning birds, sometimes entire aviaries, at an alarming rate. And as the American population ages, more people are having to relinquish long-lived birds because they can no longer care for them. Craigslist is filled with ads for unwanted birds. Mickaboo's annual intake numbers have gone from about 35 in 2002 to a projected 500 this year. If that trend continues, the number will reach 5,000 by 2018. Rescue groups and shelters cannot absorb such growth. Mickaboo currently has 375 rescued birds needing homes, and our volunteers' space to house them is at capacity. Recently we have been forced to impose a moratorium on the intake of cockatiels, although we know of many who need our help. The number of birds Mickaboo sees are a tiny fraction of the total in California, to say nothing of the US. All the while, more birds continue to be bred and sold. FALSE: Mickaboo hates pet stores and wants to drive them out of business. THE TRUTH: Mickaboo hates the mistreatment of animals; we do not hate pet stores. We don't want to ruin businesses, especially small, independent ones; we just want them to stop selling commercially bred birds. There are other business models pet stores can follow that don't involve selling bred animals. In the Bay Area we have both chains (Pet Food Express) and independent stores (Sunset Pet Supply, San Francisco; For Other Living Things, Sunnyvale) that provide goods and services for companion animals, as well as pet stores (Andy's, San Jose) that sell only re-homed animals). There are some 20 pet stores in San Francisco that do not sell animals. We regret the effect banning bird sales might have on the income of some stores and their employees, many of whom genuinely love animals. However, the issue cannot be reduced simply to the economic interests of these stores. So long as pet stores promote birds as easy-care or "starter" pets, they will create unrealistic expectations, frustrated owners and countless miserable, unwanted birds. Moreover, even the most responsible pet sellers — stores that treat their birds well and provide good information and guidance to prospective buyers — are supplied by and support large breeding operations that rival puppy mills in lifelong cruelty toward their captive breeding animals. Such extreme mistreatment of highly intelligent, emotionally sensitive creatures cannot be justified, tolerated, or supported, even indirectly. FALSE: Mickaboo earns profits through its adoption fees. THE TRUTH: Mickaboo is a 501(c)3 organization, run entirely by volunteers. It does not make money on anything, nor does anyone who works in it. Even without physical facilities or paid employees, the cost of our rescue work is staggering. Mickaboo makes a lifetime commitment to each bird it rescues and will take back any of our adopted birds and foster them again for as long as necessary to find permanent homes or for the rest of their lives. Many of our rescues need expensive and prolonged medical treatment, and Mickaboo spends on average more than $10,000 per month for veterinary care. Adoption fees defray a small fraction (less than 15%) of those costs. The rest comes mainly from donations and a few, small fund-raisers. Our finances are a matter of public record. What the records do not show are the many additional costs that Mickaboo's volunteers absorb themselves — food, transportation and toys for their foster birds — to say nothing of the countless hours of skilled and loving labor they give to emotional rehabilitation and socialization, teaching once neglected and abused animals to trust people again. FALSE: Mickaboo's "high" adoption fees and "burdensome" procedures discourage adoption. THE TRUTH: Mickaboo's adoption fees are in most cases less than what the same bird would cost if purchased from a pet store or breeder. Our adoption procedure requires people to take a basic bird-care class, fill out a questionnaire, be interviewed over the phone, and have a home visit. We do not consider these requirements burdensome, in light of the past treatment some of our birds have suffered, the investment we have made in rehabilitating them, and the lifelong commitment we make to their welfare. Nor should anyone who is serious about having birds in their home, given the long-term responsibilities their care demands. We are not trying to put up barriers to adoption. Our goal is to educate adopters and to be sure they are able and willing to provide safe, healthy, and permanent homes for our birds. Pet stores are only required by law to provide a one-page care sheet (sometimes not provided, often containing out-of-date or erroneous information) to send home with the animal. Certainly it is easier to walk into a pet shop and buy a bird than it is to adopt from us or any other reputable rescue organization. But it is exactly that kind of impulse buying we want to discourage. A person too impatient to go through an adoption process is probably not patient enough to care for a parrot. Someone unwilling to pay a modest adoption fee is not likely to spend the money that avian veterinary care or healthy food will cost. FALSE: Mickaboo refuses to work with pet stores on finding solutions. THE TRUTH: Besides working with most of the Bay Area's animal shelters, Mickaboo cooperates with several local stores, including Pet Food Express, Andy's Pet Shop in San Jose, and For Other Living Things in Sunnyvale, holding our public classes and adoption fairs at their facilities. We are grateful to anyone else trying to help animals in need, and we will be happy to work with other pet stores as soon as they stop selling live, bred animals. It is not helpful to our cause to promote businesses that sell commercially bred birds, contributing to the tragic problems we are working so hard to solve. FALSE: Mickaboo is ideologically opposed to people having pets and wants to outlaw it. THE TRUTH: Mickaboo was founded and is run entirely by people who love animals and have many in our own homes. We could not devote the hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to rescue and rehabilitation work if we didn't. Our concerns are that people make informed choices about acquiring birds and be committed to giving them the attention and care they need. We support responsible pet keeping in many concrete ways. MIckaboo's Web site offers a wealth of information on bird behavior, health and care for the public to read and download. Mickaboo teaches free classes in basic bird care about every two weeks at locations around the Bay Area. We also offer classes on more advanced topics ranging from foraging to lighting to understanding bird body language. And every person who fosters or adopts a bird from Mickaboo automatically becomes part of an active, Web-based discussion group providing support, expert, personal advice, and sometimes emergency help to volunteers and their birds. Mickaboo needs more caring, responsible people, not fewer, to join us in adopting and fostering homeless birds — ours as well as the many beyond our reach. If you are interested in adopting or fostering a bird or would like to attend one of our classes, volunteer or donate, please visit http://www.mickaboo.org/ or phone 650-450-9104. -- 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

1 0

Just interviewed
by Elizabeth Y 23 Jul '10

23 Jul '10

I just hung up with the LA Times reporter. Scary. I'm sure with as responsible and measured and appropriate as I tried to be that I said some juicy/idiotic/misconstrueable stuff upon which journalists are preternaturally able to pounce. I did my best. 8 P I second Jonathan's nomination of Maggie to this team. e Elizabeth Y www.RescueReport.org

4 3

Re: [Media-advisors] Interview to be
by Pamela Lee 23 Jul '10

23 Jul '10

as to finances - prior to this current month, we were running about $2k per month behind in donations, and $6k per month higher in expenses. These amts are vs 2009. Sent from my Peek - Pam ------------------------------------- Michelle Yesney<msyesney(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'll take a stab at the answers and others can correct/modify/supplement my answers. My answers are in blue. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Elizabeth Y <adoptkings(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've left a VM for the reporter. Along with talking about the ban, I'd like > to share how Mickaboo is constantly having to struggle to raise all the > money and recruit all the volunteers it takes to do this work. > > A couple of assumptions/questions I'd appreciate having info on- > > -Our income is holding steady but expenses are going up- true? Or are > donations down? I believe the donations are holding steady and expenses > are going up. > > -Our volunteer involvement is holding steady or growing- true? Or are we > seeing any downward trend? I don't think we track "volunteer" > participation as such. I don't know if our numbers of incoming adoptins are > holding steady. > > -How many volunteers do we have? (Including those active this year, let's > say.) I'm not sure how we would count an "active" volunteer. Any ideas? > > -How many foster homes do we currently have fostering the ~350 birds? don't > know yet > > -What is our 'recidivism' rate for returned birds? (to date, I know it's > increasing) Again, we don't track this, and any birds returned are > usually from several years ago. We allow a 30-day-return (with refund) when > a bird just isn't a good fit in a household, and the adopter can choose > another bird until he finds one that works in his household/flock. If we > look at the hundreds (thousands now?) of birds we have adopted out, I would > estimate the recidivism rate as 1-2%. > > Thanks in advance for any info you can provide. > > Elizabeth Y > www.RescueReport.org > > > >

1 0