Here are my responses (hastily written, interpolated in red) to the proposals Sally conveys. Others' individual takes may differ, but I think this is in line with what Elizabeth, Tammy, Vinny, and others have been saying. I laid out my broader concerns in a posting last week, pasted in again at the bottom of these comments.Jonathan================We had a long discussion, especially any alternatives the pet store owners had to offer, including the idea of ...
somehow certifying certain stores to sell animals (similar in concept to taxi medallions, with a limited number of certifications allowed in the city and stringent requirements to get the certification).
Sounds good in principle. But requirements would have to be very high for me to feel OK about that: they would have to include such things as enhanced (Mickaboo-style) education as a PRE-condition for sale, selling only rescued animals and/or animals from approved breeders (and the standards for breeders' approval would be extremely stringent and require continued monitoring; frankly, I wonder whether it's even possible). I also wonder, is there potential for abuse in restricting the number of stores? The existing businesses aren't magic or somehow more entitled. If new ones want to open and sell rescued animals ethically, that's not a problem.
limiting any ban to national chains,
You certainly could argue the chains are far worse overall, but it's hard to see how a ban on one store or kind of store selling animals could withstand legal scrutiny. More important, the problem is systemic - broader than the chains. Yes, it's egregious in some of the chain stores (but also some small stores - Lucky Dog in Berkeley???). And even the best independent stores continue to add birds to the population, often using unrealistic sales pitches and insufficient education, and they support inhumane breeding operations.
having adoption fairs with various rescue groups at pet stores,
We have them at a number of institutions already, and we'd be happy to have them at other stores as soon as they stop selling bred animals. It's not helpful to support stores that create the problem. Kind of like Philip Morris contributing to tobacco-education programs?
pet stores taking small animals from ACC,
Somewhat the same as the previous point, but it's up to ACC to weigh the merits...
a ban that only applies to new stores (existing stores grandfathered in as long as owner remains the same).
Same as the above; it doesn't really address the problem. As a practical matter, a certain amount of grandfathering will be needed to ease any transition - it always is. I'd rather see a transition plan grandfathering in animals already in the pipeline, to be sold responsibly to well-educated clients; from there moving toward no bird sales, or sales of only rescued birds, or sales of birds bred in rigorously vetted facilities (if such can be found). However, given the need to re-home a large and growing number of relinquished or abandoned birds, it's hard to feel comfortable with anybody continuing to sell bred birds now. I'd give them some time to make the transition, though.
I believe if we have to swallow the continued sale of birds, we should divorce ourselves from anything that smacks of endorsing their practices, or worse seems like a shakedown or sell-out on our part (money for Mickaboo = we tolerate their abuses). IMO, our attention should be focused entirely on what the stores themselves need to do in order to provide adequate care to their birds and education to their customers. If they want our help, that's fine, but we shouldn't require it, so long as they agree to shoulder the responsibility. So that's where I would start. We want birds to be well treated from the time they are hatched to the time they are sold. We want people who purchase and keep birds to be well informed about what birds need in terms of diet, medical care, stimulation, and social interaction - at a minimum.
I would then stress that this is not happening, and for us to be OK with bird sales that has to change fundamentally. We have to be in agreement about what adequate bird care is (for each species), diet, veterinary care, etc. We must insist that bird care sheets and bird care guidance by pet stores are often inadequate. Something more like Mickaboo's basic bird care class is needed - and that can't be done in under a couple hours. If they want to give their own basic bird care classes, based on an agreed curriculum and standards, that's fine. If they want to pay Mickaboo to do it that's fine too. But it has to be a pre-condition for sale. People need to know what they're getting into. No more impulse buying.
And I want full disclosure of where they're getting their birds. We should demand the right to inspect those facilities. If we can discuss minimum standards for cages and pet store sales, then I think it's time to discuss minimum standards at breeding facilities. No more supporting avian slave-mills.
========================================================
From: Sally Stephens <stephensfw@mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 12:22 AM
To: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Meeting w/pet store owners and others??
Elizabeth.
Sorry I didn't get back to you. It was held yesterday. We had a long discussion, especially any alternatives the pet store owners had to offer, including the idea of somehow certifying certain stores to sell animals (similar in concept to taxi medallions, with a limited number of certifications allowed in the city and stringent requirements to get the certification), limiting any ban to national chains, having adoption fairs with various rescue groups at pet stores, pet stores taking small animals from ACC, and a ban that only applies to new stores (existing stores grandfathered in as long as owner remains the same).
We'll meet next Friday, not sure when, to continue the discussion. We're hoping to get more rescues to attend that meeting. Would you be able to make that meeting? -- Sally