If the Commission is to send a true message of compassion and caring, I recommend the ordinance you put forth include all birds. It would then be up to the Board of Supervisors for them to choose which birds if any they include, according to what they see as politically expedient. The likely hood is that all species of birds kept in cages, isolated, mostly unable to fly suffer to the same extent, obviously some longer than others according to their life span. The smaller ones able to survive better in smaller cages, but still not having a true quality of life, Still being thought of as commodities and things to be bought and sold, discarded at an “owners” whim. Not exactly the message we want to send if we are truly the city of St. Francis a man whose compassion and caring is the basis for the animal protection movement, certainly the basis for IDA.
“Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first duty to them. But to stop there is not enough, we have a higher duty to them. To be of service to them wherever they require it.”
That is what I see we the proposed ordinance, the Commission and we, are all about.
From: Philip Gerrie [mailto:glassgerrie@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:32 PM
To: harris.rose@att.net
Cc: Elizabeth Y; Sally Stephens; saveABunny@aol.com; Pam Hemphill; Kim Flaherty; Elliot M. Katz DVM
Subject: Working Group Update July 23 11PM
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?
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.
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.
I looked this up this AM 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" <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] 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
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:
|