I was struck with how little movement the other side showed. They were making the same arguments they were last time about no homeless bird crisis, no bird mills, their ethics and compassion. The one new thing I heard (maybe they've said it before) was a more sophisticated victimhood. They now say our use of pejorative terms like "bird mill" are examples of hate speech. This will tie in nicely with the terrorist image some of them were trying to pin on us — that whole business about the Nazis calling Jews vivisectionists — and of course with the recent threats against  Rick French and his business.  We might look for this arm of their PR campaign to ramp up. 

AFA's offer to take all the unwanted birds (if that's really what he meant) scares the crap out of me. We have no idea what would happen to those birds and should explore their proposal just long enough to find what we need to shut it down. 

Regarding the meeting's outcome, I thought Philip handled it well, avoided a possible defeat by the supes, and bought us some time to get bigger and stronger. In other words, he played for what he thought he could get now (something that would have a more positive image than a ban), and laid the groundwork for more later: it's not a ban, not even Teresa's compromise really, just a promise to study that and keep talking. But the ban wasn't abandoned or even technically tabled either; the commissioners agreed informally to put the idea on hold until January while they see whether we can get anywhere on this Pet-Ready certification idea (hey, wait a minute, ... isn't January right after the November elections and holidays?). Based on the meeting we had with Rick, Claudia of Your Basic Bird, Jamie Yorck,  et al. last week, and what I saw tonight, I rather doubt pet store owners are going to cooperate with implementing Teresa's idea any more than they would with a ban. By January it should be obvious to everyone on the commission where the inflexibility lies, and the idea of a ban can return with greater credibility (and hopefully support, to the extent we can build it). 

Jonathan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Watkins
Sent: Aug 13, 2010 1:15 AM
To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team'
Subject: [Media-advisors] Mtg of San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission Tonite

It was a smaller meeting but still lively. Teresa from CavySpirit presented a proposal for a “Pet Ready” certification program to the Commission. The commission liked the spirit of the cooperation in the certification program and it would be more palatable than a ban. Jonathan Harris and I spoke. Jonathan gave a wonderfully succinct analysis of the situation and addressed the fear that our grandkids won’t be able to have pets. (If she had an amazon now , she could be sure her grandkids would have a pet.LOL.) I had a few issues such as online tests not assuring that the material will be implemented. I described the Mickaboo process and how even after all that, we still run into people who want to use Teflon pans. I mentioned the Petco legal judgment and the need for enforcement that an educational program won’t provide.  I also spoke about the Preferred Birds bird mill in Florida as several of the commissioners were still wondering if there are really bird mills. One of the speakers that followed me took offense at the use of the terms bird mills and puppy mills. She acted like I was talking about her when I mentioned only the facility in Florida. There were some wackos quoting Homeland Security memos about the IDA and compared the ban to Nazi Germany. I don’t doubt that the IDA is on some terrorist lists.

 

Someone from the Aviculture Society said she has waiting lists of people interested in birds so she wanted the shelter to call her and she can pick up the birds right away. She didn’t seem to realize that the birds do get picked up.

 

Channels 4 and 2 had reporters covering the meeting. I’m sure Jonathan, Elizabeth, Kim and Barna will have more to add when they get home. Pam was there too but had a conure to rescue. Yay, rescue!