Otherwise, I'll express that, while there are several red flags in the
video, we would not
want to speculate about the current condition of the WF's birds based on a
video.
I think that this is the right approach. I am sure that this was not
Philip's intent but I think that his asking us to analyze this short, rather
lightweight video to find problems is setting us up to say the wrong thing.
Not only do we not want to be bird rescue cops at this point but we don't
want to hurt our credibility as unbiased experts in the field of companion
bird care.
The video in question doesn't show us the big picture of how The Wings
Foundation houses and cares for ~50 birds, nor is it intended to. As Philip
said, her home was expecting as visit anyway, so what is does show us is
skewed.
--VH
From: media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org
[mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Y
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 2:55 PM
To: Mickaboo media advisor team
Subject: [Media-advisors] FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
Regarding the Wing Foundation (see latest below), I don't know that we want
to be the 'Bird Rescue Cops' and critique others' efforts from a video but
if someone has well founded concern for the well being of Dana's birds, now
might be the time to share it.
Otherwise, I'll express that, while there are several red flags in the
video, we would not want to speculate about the current condition of the
WF's birds based on a video.
I'll also forward the types-of-birds to ban responses and seek permission to
share Philip's email with Irena. When I last asked about giving it out (not
to Irena), he asked that I forward to him instead.
Anything anybody wants to add/modify before I respond to Philip's group?
e
_____
From: Philip Gerrie
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 2:38 PM
To: harris.rose@att.net
Cc: Elizabeth Y ; Sally Stephens
; saveABunny@aol.com; Pam Hemphill
; Kim Flaherty ; Elliot M.
Katz DVM ; Anna Williams
Subject: Re: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
The complaints about her/ from her are that ACC does not work with her,
Peninsula Humane does, Mickaboo does not work with her, Rick, from Animal
Company, does.
Complaints are that she doesn't keep the birds in adequate conditions. The
video shows her place. it was suggested to actually pay a visit. I was
wanting to understand what about her place is not good for the birds. It
didn't look like a hoarding situation to me. When does it become a hoarding
situation?
Philip
On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:36 AM, LDY wrote:
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 wrote:
From: Philip Gerrie
Subject: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
To: harris.rose@att.net
Cc: "Elizabeth Y" , "Sally Stephens"
, saveABunny@aol.com, "Pam Hemphill"
, "Kim Flaherty" , "Elliot M.
Katz DVM"
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 wrote:
From: Philip Gerrie
Subject: Working Group Update July 21 11AM
To: "Elizabeth Y"
Cc: "Sally Stephens" , saveABunny@aol.com, "Pam
Hemphill" , "Kim Flaherty" ,
"Rose Harris" , "Elliot M. Katz DVM"
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
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/white/detail?blogid=102&entry_id=67533
&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"
Date: July 20, 2010 8:20:35 AM PDT
To: "'Philip Gerrie'"
Subject: FW: Working Group Update July 20 6:25 AM
Reply-To:
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
http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=15168701&type=CU
&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 wrote:
From: Elizabeth Young
Subject: Re: working group?
To: "Philip Gerrie"
Cc: harris.rose@att.net, "Pam Hemphill" , "Kim
Flaherty"
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
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 wrote:
From: Elizabeth Y
Subject: RE: working group?
To: "Philip Gerrie" , harris.rose@att.net
Cc: "Pam Hemphill" , "Kim Flaherty"
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
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:31 PM
To: harris.rose@att.net
Cc: Elizabeth Young ; Pam Hemphill
; Kim Flaherty
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 http://mc/compose?to=glassgerrie@gmail.com > wrote:
From: Philip Gerrie http://mc/compose?to=glassgerrie@gmail.com >
Subject: working group?
To: "Elizabeth Young" http://mc/compose?to=adoptkings@gmail.com >
Cc: "Pam Hemphill" http://mc/compose?to=pam.hemphill@gmail.com >, "Kim Flaherty"
http://mc/compose?to=kflaherty@pacbell.net >, "Rose
Harris" 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
