> Is he really this ignorant of US caged bird populations? . . .

> Or is he . . . just being a politician

He could be both. Given his lifelong commitment to animal welfare, I don’t think he could be totally ignorant, even though HSUS has always been, in my mind, anyway, primarily a dog and cat organization. Pacelle will make a stand for other animals but be seems more inclined to do so when there’s high visibility (the politician thing again). So far, the pet bird crisis has not been as media-centric as, say, wild horses, which could be why he hasn’t gotten on board.

Some of Pacell’s problem is probably that he has his head firmly in the sand as a matter of self-preservation: he likes to keep his image clean, and the pet bird thing is too big and ugly ($$$) a battle for him to not get dirty if he enters into it. For that matter, I think that Barbara Heidenreich’s head is right next to Wayne Pacelle’s in the sandbox.  

Regarding the Times piece, I thought it was at least more fair and factual, and somewhat better written, than most of the local reporters’ stuff. The author exuded a lot of the requisite So-Cal smarminess towards SF-ers, which I can take or leave, but she was able to look at this as somewhat of an outsider, with neither vitriol or excessive passion.

Off-topic, perhaps, but I thought that Pacelle’s aligning with Michael Vick was bold but ill-advised, unless I missed something. I heard a few of Michael Vick’s mea culpas and lessons-learned speeches and they were always talking about himself, his ruined life, how much his crimes cost him. I never heard anything indicating remorse or even acknowledging how much pain and cruelty he had inflicted on animals. So unless there’s a side to Vick that I’ve never seen or heard of before, I can’t imagine a person who’d be more out of place representing a humane organization.

--VH