|
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 <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
wrote:
From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
Subject: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
To: harris.rose@att.net
Cc: "Elizabeth Y" <adoptkings@gmail.com>,
"Sally Stephens" <stephensfw@mindspring.com>,
saveABunny@aol.com, "Pam
Hemphill" <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>,
"Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty@pacbell.net>,
"Elliot M. Katz DVM" <emk@idausa.org>
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.
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 <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
wrote:
From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
Subject: Working Group Update July 21 11AM
To: "Elizabeth Y" <adoptkings@gmail.com>
Cc: "Sally Stephens" <stephensfw@mindspring.com>,
saveABunny@aol.com,
"Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>, "Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty@pacbell.net>,
"Rose Harris" <harris.rose@att.net>, "Elliot M. Katz DVM"
<emk@idausa.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 11:06 AM
I thought it was very well written. You may have seen it
already.
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
From: "Elliot Katz" <emk@idausa.org>
Date: July 20, 2010 8:20:35 AM PDT
To: "'Philip
Gerrie'" <glassgerrie@earthlink.net>
Subject: FW: Working Group Update July 20 6:25
AM
Reply-To: <emk@idausa.org>
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&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 <adoptkings@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Elizabeth Young <adoptkings@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: working group?
To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
Cc: harris.rose@att.net,
"Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>, "Kim
Flaherty" <kflaherty@pacbell.net>
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.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Philip Gerrie
<glassgerrie@gmail.com> 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?
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 <adoptkings@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Elizabeth Y <adoptkings@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: working group?
To: "Philip Gerrie" <glassgerrie@gmail.com>, harris.rose@att.net
Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>, "Kim
Flaherty" <kflaherty@pacbell.net>
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 <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday,
July 17, 2010 9:31 PM
To: harris.rose@att.net
Cc: Elizabeth
Young <adoptkings@gmail.com>; Pam Hemphill
<pam.hemphill@gmail.com>; Kim Flaherty
<kflaherty@pacbell.net>
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.
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 <glassgerrie@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Philip Gerrie <glassgerrie@gmail.com>
Subject: working group?
To: "Elizabeth Young" <adoptkings@gmail.com>
Cc: "Pam Hemphill" <pam.hemphill@gmail.com>,
"Kim Flaherty" <kflaherty@pacbell.net>,
"Rose Harris" <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.
|
|
|
|
|