Could we ask if he can have his veterinary invoices available, too?  (Letterhead intact, please) --- On Sat, 8/7/10, Karen Watkins <karen.watkins@gmail.com> wrote: From: Karen Watkins <karen.watkins@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Fwd: Working Group Update August 6 10PM To: "'Jonathan Harris'" <jonathanharris@earthlink.net>, "'Mickaboo media advisor team'" <media-advisors@mickaboo.org> Date: Saturday, August 7, 2010, 2:46 PM We can ask if Rick will his financial statements available before the vote.   From: media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Harris Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 2:00 PM To: Mickaboo media advisor team Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Fwd: Working Group Update August 6 10PM   You're right, of course. Nevertheless, it would be fun if someone Thursday night could bring up Rick's boast/assurance in an offhanded way - either to embarrass him either into admitting he's full of bluff 'n stuff or worse that the facility refuses to open its doors to us, or to embarrass him into wrangling us a guided tour.  -j -----Original Message----- From: "Vincent J. Hrovat" <1217@vhrovat.org> Sent: Aug 7, 2010 3:50 PM To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team' Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Fwd: Working Group Update August 6 10PM Jonathan, thank you for the insight. It sounds to me like the idea of us visiting Central Pet  / Preferred Birds was posited by Rick in his from-the-hip mode (shoot first and ask questions later). I have serious doubts about whether Central Pet would really let us visit their facility for a show-and-tell; in fact, I think that any bird breeding and distribution that they do is kept as out-of-the-public-eye as is legally possible for a publicly-traded company. Besides, most of Rick’s other from-the-hip stuff is ill-advised at best. I also don’t think it’s wise to dwell too much on this topic because, as others have said, the matter at hand is the retailers and not the breeders, and it might obfuscate things to put too much focus on what Central Pet is doing.   On the other hand, I would really like to get as much about Central Pet as we can. If at all possible, I would love to be able to get some real and current information that we could pass on to Mira, other rescues, et al. Elizabeth, do you think it would be prudent to follow up on this topic with ACWC (if not with Rick directly) to see if it can lead anywhere?   --VH   From: media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Harris Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 12:30 AM To: Mickaboo media advisor team Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Fwd: Working Group Update August 6 10PM   I'm sorry to be sending this so late. Elizabeth - thank you for your diligence in getting notes and names and reflections out to everyone!   It was a frustrating meeting in many ways. With an exception or two, I think most in attendance were trying to be respectful, but without a facilitator, contributions more-or-less depended on people's ability to break in, which meant the discussion veered all over the place. Rick and Claudia had their backs up and were not in a mood to listen. Much of the time they were defensive, accusatory or simply obtuse, misinterpreting what was said.    I was disappointed we were not able to steer the conversation more toward the specific needs of birds, tho Elizabeth and I tried at various points. Good for Elizabeth, who caught them on budgies/parakeets and brought up Puck (the bird with the largest vocabulary) to show them that common, small birds have intelligence and complex needs similar to the larger ones who get the spotlight. (We must keep attention focused on the "throw-away" birds, as Tammy calls them.)    The one proposal seriously discussed was Teresa's SPARC. Her presentation was fantastic. We may not be happy with aspects of the proposal, but it was a detailed, specific, and well thought through compromise that could start to change people's consciousness about birds and other small animals as well as slow down bird purchases by stopping some impulse buys and weeding out some unsuitable candidates. Teresa was very clearheaded, moderate and conciliatory in tone, and able to answer all her interlocutors' many objections.    Elizabeth's 'sanctuary city' idea actually fit very well with Teresa's 'educational' proposal. What we are trying to create is a fundamental change in people's understanding of birds - their biological and psychological nature and what that requires in terms of their care and how they should be raised and 'sold.' Hopefully, this would lead  to fewer birds in SF homes and better care for birds who remain. And we hope too it would set an example for the rest of the US. Such changes of consciousness are possible in a relatively short time. Most people I know who have dogs or cats today got them at shelters; that wasn't true when I was a child.    Rick and Claudia's response to all this was that they already are doing sufficient education and vetting of their clientele. This was one of their main "broken record" points. I tried to challenge them, citing personal experience (Patricia and I bought 4 canaries at an SF pet store and got no very strong or clear guidance about their care) as well as observation (that anecdote, in which a young woman was in and out of a pet store in 20 minutes with a new parrotlet she bought because she came in bored with her cockatiel). Rick replied that there are "exceptions," a few bad apples, but that's not typical. That was another mantra - exceptions. The homeless birds presumably are exceptions too, a problem at the periphery having to do with individual failures but not deriving from the very nature of the business. So he and Claudia believe these exceptions can be handled by things like adoption fairs, if only rescue groups would cooperate. Teresa and Marcy (that pair could have their own series on network TV as a good cop/bad cop team!) tore into them on this and on their whole claim of being responsible, citing e.g., pet stores' refusal even to neuter their rodents and rabbits.    Teresa also was wonderfully clear about the the real evil being "at the back end," as she put it - breeders and distributors - offering store owners a graceful way out, the chance to dissociate themselves from the worst abuses of the "industry." But they wouldn't even meet us halfway on that. We tried to press them on PetCo and the factory farming of birds in the Kaytee preferred whatever program (senior moment). Rick said he had no problem with PetCo and defended Kaytee. True to his arrogant self, he asked if I had ever visited or even seen pictures of their facility. I said no, and had he? He admitted he hadn't either, but he knew somebody and he was sure they'd love to us around. Elizabeth and I looked at each other and shared one of the afternoon's few smiles.    My impression of Claudia was a rather sour, bitter person; she thinks we're nasty and was spoiling for a fight right out of the starting gate (unfortunately, there was this Marcy person waiting to take her up on the challenge; fortunately, her store is in Berkeley so we don't have to deal with her). My feeling is that Rick was simply looking for any and all excuses not to support even the modest  and creative compromise that Teresa proposed. His mind was made up and he came simply to stonewall and beat things down. Ultimately I believe his intransigence is rooted in business interests. He expressed an anti-regulatory ideology of free choice by the customer working with an ethical business being in everyone's best interest. But there is also a strong sense of personal and professional pride involved. He was constantly pulling rank ("... and how long have YOU had birds?"), discounting anyone else's observations. We (Elizabeth and Sally and I) tried to have an amicable conversation with him and Claudia after the main meeting broke up. I was trying to probe what they (R&C) considered to be good bird care and appropriate customer guidance in terms of such things as social interaction, enrichment, and out-of-cage time. It was pretty clear they were much less concerned about prolonged confinement or isolation than we are; their attitude was patronizing and dismissive of any arguments to the contrary. They feel they have vastly more experience and knowledge than we do and they are outraged that some motley crew of johnny-come-lately radicals and do-gooders wants to impose standards telling them how to do what they've been doing (in Rick's case) for 40+ years. They see themselves as responsible professionals. Claudia described her job as matching the right bird with the right person. She told of how she would question people about their lifestyle and e.g., discourage customers from getting a cockatoo if they had or were even planning to have children (I don't doubt that she and Rick have indeed discouraged a few irresponsible potential buyers - the worst of the worst - but of course they do not discourage impulse purchases). They also said they were ongoing sources of information and guidance for customers with questions about their birds (and I'm sure that's also true, whether or not it's always good advice). And they both claim to have rehomed many birds.    We no longer have to prove there is a crisis in homeless/unwanted birds. I didn't hear anybody denying it this afternoon, despite the doublethink implicit in seeing it as a "peripheral" problem. Still, we have the stats, and we should not let up in broadcasting them (thanks, Martha! and I like Vinny's suggestion - especially as testimony for the Aug. 12 AWC meeting). I also didn't hear anybody accusing us of being money makers. But if we want even to try working with these stores, there still is their self-image/ideology to contend with. In order to accomplish anything, we would need to have comprehensive and detailed discussions about bird needs and bird care, and I doubt they're interested in doing that. If they aren't, and they aren't willing to compromise meaningfully in any other way, I suppose Marcy is right. Why not go for the ban?    -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Young Sent: Aug 7, 2010 1:27 AM To: Mickaboo media advisor team Subject: [Media-advisors] Fwd: Working Group Update August 6 10PM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:24 PM Subject: Re: Working Group Update August 6 10PM To: SaveABunny@aol.com Cc: Rose Harris <harris.rose@att.net>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk@idausa.org>, Elizabeth Young <adoptkings@gmail.com>, Sally Stephens <stephensfw@mindspring.com>, Pam Hemphill <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>, Kim Flaherty <kflaherty@pacbell.net>, Kat.Brown@sfgov.org, jchick73@yahoo.com, Teresa Murphy <teresa@cavyspirit.com> 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@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 www.MickaCoo.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0 -----Inline Attachment Follows-----