Let me know if the file size on the aviary photos are too large - can downsize. --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Mary Long wrote: From: Mary Long Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] IMPORTANT FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM To: "Mickaboo media advisor team" Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 11:14 AM I do have to preface my earlier comments on galvanized cages.  I use an older one for our 'tiels/budies/quail.  But as you can see in the attached pictures, they have a wide variety of highways, freeways, "back roads" and hanging perches.  Some are made of braided cotton rope, reed, acrylic, woods, etc.  Plus I leave the "lower" area clear for flight.  As a result, they rarely, rarely use the aviary bars to get from A to B.   The 2009a shows the "east" side of the aviary (toys, food, water, preening areas).  The 2009b shows the "west" side where (only perches) because that's the end I provide the mist-baths (dont' want moldy toys).  The 2010 shot doesn't show much depth, but there's a maze of toys of they can climb on, hang off, etc, and provides them some privacy, too.  They are all not constantly in direct view of eachother if they choose not to.   --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Mary Long wrote: From: Mary Long Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] IMPORTANT FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM To: "Mickaboo media advisor team" Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 10:26 AM The video, ugh:   No enrichments - no toys anywhere in sight!  Important for all animals/birds - but especially for plucking birds (to try and redirect attention w/activities).  No variety of perches or ropes to walk, climb, hang from. Inadequate caging.  Saw a cockatoo on a small galvanized (steel & zinc) cage.  Might not be a problem if they had suspended perches - but is obvious they actually transit the cage bars with foot & beak, and considering that especially birds "from Oz" are prone to heavy metal toxicity...they need to be in powder-coated or stainless steel cages.  There are better articles out there - but here's one link: http://www.avianweb.com/heavymetalpoisoningbirds.html and http://www.avianweb.com/buildingacage.html Never saw flight cages that housed the eclectus used for birds.  But looks like painted wire.  "Bar" sizing seems dangerous. Birds taken outside are not in harness.  If startled, even if they can't fly, they can make really bad decisions - and on a busy street I can easily see them "jumping off" the shoulder or hand and running into a dangerous situation with traffic or dogs (etc) on the street.  Carriers are best for street transportation.      --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Elizabeth Y wrote: From: Elizabeth Y Subject: [Media-advisors] IMPORTANT FW: Working Group Update July 23 11PM To: "Mickaboo media advisor team" Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 8:29 AM I know we've answered the question about which birds before but I think we need to provide an answer that we would publish. Can anybody write something up? And see Wing Foundation video below. e From: Philip Gerrie 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?  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&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&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  wrote: From: Philip Gerrie Subject: working group? To: "Elizabeth Young" Cc: "Pam Hemphill" , "Kim Flaherty" , "Rose Harris" 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          --  Elizabeth Until they all have homes, don't buy, don't breed- adopt. www.RescueReport.org www.MickaCoo.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjyooh3Yo0     -----Inline Attachment Follows----- -----Inline Attachment Follows-----