Re: [Media-advisors] 3rd Request- SF Pet Sale Ban meeting with pet sellers?

Oh, I don't disagree at all. But I think pet stores just duck when the breeders' issue is raised - and SF cannot control the breeders (I'm sure there are relatively few and all small ones in SF). Pet stores bear a major share of the responsibility in their husbandry, their marketing, and the total absence of responsibility for the aftermath of their actions. And if we force them to focus on their responsibility, to make SF assume responsibility for the pet sellers, that's one step take toward the greater solution. On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Jonathan Harris < jonathanharris@earthlink.net> wrote:

Your specific, numbered points are excellent, Michelle.

Regarding breeders/breeding, I hope we're not talking at cross-purposes. I understand that the issue is retail sales, but we oppose retail sales for several reasons: 1) the explosion of homeless and unwanted birds as a fact in its own right; 2) the mistreatment and suffering (and homelessness) of birds caused by poorly informed and impulse buying; 3) mistreatment of birds by (some) pet stores; and 4) the inherent cruelty of the breeding system. All of these are relevant to the present discussion. While SF cannot regulate breeders, and the US does not, we still can use the inhumanity of breeding as a reason why we cannot support pet stores selling animals. I would say, arguably, it is the ultimate reason. It's certainly my ace in the hole which justifies saying that - despite anything else pet stores might do to mitigate the problems they are causing - there is cruelty of such magnitude inherent in the process of producing animals for retail sales, that we cannot support it. (I'm kind of building here on what Tammy said awhile back about how to answer the "what do you want in an ideal world" kind of question.)

-----Original Message----- From: Michelle Yesney Sent: Aug 5, 2010 8:14 PM To: Mickaboo media advisor team Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] 3rd Request- SF Pet Sale Ban meeting with pet sellers?

The issue at this time isn't breeders. We're talking about the sale of animals in retail stores. The basis of our philosophy includes the problems with industrial breeders, but I don't think we can make breeders a part of this solution. The City of San Francisco is not able to regulate business facilities outside of its own boundaries, and since there is no national system for overseeing/inspecting/regulating breeding facilities to ensure acceptable conditions, there is no mechanism for San Francisco to regulate the source of birds sold in the City of SF that I am prepared to believe will be effective.

The pet store owners keep trying to make this somebody else's problem. We need to push back persistently that they have to take care of their part of the problems. For example:

1. They sell unhealthy birds. - Possible solution - they have birds examined by an avian vet prior to the bird going home. They have their facilties regularly inspected by an avian vet to ensure that it provides a healthy environment. This should include environmental testing (at LEAST annually) for avian viruses. 2. They sell birds based on false representation of the birds' needs, personalities, health factors, etc. Possible solution - all buyers must take a class PRIOR TO FINALIZING THE SALE. The class must be based on a curriculum approved by the City of SF. Accurate, complete information will be sent home with the bird. 3. They sell birds to spur-of-the-moment purchasers. Possible solution - Buyers must wait at least 24 hours before taking the bird home, even if the store can provide the requisite training in less time. 4. They sell birds that eventually end up in shelters and rescues. Possible solution - the store must take back any bird that it sells and ensure that the bird is healthy (as certified by an avian vet) before s/he can be resold. Sellers are to be informed of this responsibility in writing at the time of sale.

Plus - A sign will be posted at the store stating all of these conditions.

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Jonathan Harris < jonathanharris@earthlink.net> wrote:

...

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 *Sent: *Sunday, August 01, 2010 12:22 AM *To: *Elizabeth Young

*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