Well, earlier this week Ellen talked to Petfinder co-founder Betsy Saul and Jo Sullivan of the ASPCA. To her credit, Ellen continues to promote adoption (hopefully next time she'll actually read the adoption contract she signs), though this incident may hurt the rescue movement for quite awhile.
In fact, I'm fairly confidant that the managers of every Puppy Mill Dogs 'r' Us are telling all their customers, "Oh no, we would never come back and take that dog away from you" as they swipe the credit cards of unsuspecting families.
(Of course, don't expect said manager to be of much help when that cute puppy turns into a genetic timebomb due to poor breeding.)
I still fear that this Iggy fiasco has hurt the reputations of rescue groups across the country. And to clarify my statement from earlier posts, my main fear about legislators stepping into regulate rescues has to do with the fact that your average local lawmaker probably hasn't spent too much time getting into the nitty-gritty of animal rescue other than sitting on the board of the local Humane Society. Again, I have to reiterate that if legislators hear more news about "those picky rescues" laws could be passed that could hurt the rescue movement.
What if based on flimsy evidence area residents accuse the rescues in your area of "cherry picking the nice dogs and leaving only the pit bulls"? Some legislator might then be able to pass a law that restricts rescues from pulling certain animals from the shelter.
And this is why I think the rescue movement needs to stress positive PR to counter the negative press. Look at the rescues helping find lost pets left behind in the California wildfires. And within the past 48 hours rescue groups were given the go ahead to start placing the dogs rescued from Michael Vick.
It's these actions that may help our community overcome the negative portrayals from the Iggy debacle. Now I know that not every rescue has the means to save Vick's dogs or head out to California but there might be some ways to help your community. Maybe start a fundraising campaign for low-cost spaying and neutering or contacting your local TV station about the abused dog you just took in as a foster?
Look around and I'm sure you'll find plenty of opportunities for highlighting the good that rescue does.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Let's Hope Things Will Settle Down Now...
Well, Ellen has pledged not to talk about Iggy anymore. I hope for the sake of the thousands of animals that may be euthanized across the country that this does not put a bad stain on the rescue community.
Still, I'm not so certain that we've avoided a backlash. Already I've come across several news reports about the "difficulty of adopting pets" (here, here, and here).
I especially love the headline in the Globe and Mail, "Pet adoption rules, 'like the Spanish Inquisition.'"
If you're involved in rescue anywhere in the country pay attention to your local papers; your local reporters may try to localize the story. Let's use this as an opportunity to stress the positives of rescue as well as explain the reasoning behind our "Inquisition-like rules." (Though in my opinion, more rescues should practice flexibility and restraint, not to mention superb customer service skills. Comes in handy during situations like this).
Amd keep hoping rescue isn't set back several years.
Still, I'm not so certain that we've avoided a backlash. Already I've come across several news reports about the "difficulty of adopting pets" (here, here, and here).
I especially love the headline in the Globe and Mail, "Pet adoption rules, 'like the Spanish Inquisition.'"
If you're involved in rescue anywhere in the country pay attention to your local papers; your local reporters may try to localize the story. Let's use this as an opportunity to stress the positives of rescue as well as explain the reasoning behind our "Inquisition-like rules." (Though in my opinion, more rescues should practice flexibility and restraint, not to mention superb customer service skills. Comes in handy during situations like this).
Amd keep hoping rescue isn't set back several years.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Ellen DeGeneres Debacle
Well by now we've probably heard about Ellen DeGeneres and the controversy over Iggy. It seems Ellen adopted a Brussels Griffon mix from a rescue group. The dog, named Iggy, apparently did not get along well with her cats and after spending a large amount of money on training, Ellen gave the dog to her hairdresser and her family.
Now at this point I'm sure there is a collective groan coming from all members of the rescue community: almost all of us have contracts that state that if an adoption does not work out, the animal must be returned to the adoption agency/rescue.
The rescue group found out and took the dog back from the family on Sunday. When the family balked at returning the dog, the cops were called.
But the group failed to take into account they were dealing with a high profile celebrity with a television show. Now, when I was studying journalism as an undergrad, Dad would always joke that "you should never piss anyone off who buys ink by the barrel." In today's current climate make that "never piss anyone off who has a nationally syndicated talk show."
So, Ellen goes on television and explains her side of the story. In an emotional monologue, she claimed she did not read the entire contract and implored the group to return Iggy to her hairdresser whose two daughters had become attached to the dog.
Not surprisingly the press has taken the story and run with it along with most of the celebrity blogosphere.
PR-wise, I would have done things a lot differently. Instead of antagonizing the family and Ellen, I would have worked with the family. Now, by working with the family I don't mean necessarily letting them keep the dog. I would have let them keep the dog but apply for it through normal channels. If, for whatever reason, I felt the family and the dog would not mesh, I would have worked with them closely to acquire another dog, by networking with other rescuers/shelters, even reputable breeders. Be the family's personal pet locater, if you will.
You say that the group has the legal right to take the dog? I will admit that's true. Going back to Robin Cohn's PR Crisis Bible, she points out that just because an organization has the legal right to do something, doesn't mean it's a good PR move. Look at the RIAA: it's perfectly legal to sue individuals for downloading music but this has given the recording industry a lot of bad press.
Unfortunately, this situation may give the rescue movement a black eye, which I wrote about on Sunday. A lot of the comments on this story on TMZ include the usual I-tried-to-adopt-but-was-turned-down-so-I-went-to-a-breeder. Someone reading the story and the following negative rescue comments may start to think "I better stay away from rescue groups...they sound mean." And, who knows, that reader may be a great candidate for rescue.
My other fear is that if there is enough negative press about rescues, there might be a push to pass crippling regulations on rescues. For example, someone might go to their legislator and say "Those rescue groups won't let me adopt a Chihuahua because I have young children under five. I want you to pass a law that requires requires rescues and shelters to give animals to anyone who applies."
Sounds impossible? It could happen.
So how do we prevent this from happening? I think by practicing positive PR and educating the public. Also, as much as we love animals, we should not hesitate to work with those humans who want to adopt our animals.
They're not all bad, I promise.
Now at this point I'm sure there is a collective groan coming from all members of the rescue community: almost all of us have contracts that state that if an adoption does not work out, the animal must be returned to the adoption agency/rescue.
The rescue group found out and took the dog back from the family on Sunday. When the family balked at returning the dog, the cops were called.
But the group failed to take into account they were dealing with a high profile celebrity with a television show. Now, when I was studying journalism as an undergrad, Dad would always joke that "you should never piss anyone off who buys ink by the barrel." In today's current climate make that "never piss anyone off who has a nationally syndicated talk show."
So, Ellen goes on television and explains her side of the story. In an emotional monologue, she claimed she did not read the entire contract and implored the group to return Iggy to her hairdresser whose two daughters had become attached to the dog.
Not surprisingly the press has taken the story and run with it along with most of the celebrity blogosphere.
PR-wise, I would have done things a lot differently. Instead of antagonizing the family and Ellen, I would have worked with the family. Now, by working with the family I don't mean necessarily letting them keep the dog. I would have let them keep the dog but apply for it through normal channels. If, for whatever reason, I felt the family and the dog would not mesh, I would have worked with them closely to acquire another dog, by networking with other rescuers/shelters, even reputable breeders. Be the family's personal pet locater, if you will.
You say that the group has the legal right to take the dog? I will admit that's true. Going back to Robin Cohn's PR Crisis Bible, she points out that just because an organization has the legal right to do something, doesn't mean it's a good PR move. Look at the RIAA: it's perfectly legal to sue individuals for downloading music but this has given the recording industry a lot of bad press.
Unfortunately, this situation may give the rescue movement a black eye, which I wrote about on Sunday. A lot of the comments on this story on TMZ include the usual I-tried-to-adopt-but-was-turned-down-so-I-went-to-a-breeder. Someone reading the story and the following negative rescue comments may start to think "I better stay away from rescue groups...they sound mean." And, who knows, that reader may be a great candidate for rescue.
My other fear is that if there is enough negative press about rescues, there might be a push to pass crippling regulations on rescues. For example, someone might go to their legislator and say "Those rescue groups won't let me adopt a Chihuahua because I have young children under five. I want you to pass a law that requires requires rescues and shelters to give animals to anyone who applies."
Sounds impossible? It could happen.
So how do we prevent this from happening? I think by practicing positive PR and educating the public. Also, as much as we love animals, we should not hesitate to work with those humans who want to adopt our animals.
They're not all bad, I promise.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Yet another "rescue takes family's dog" story
Yesterday, the Akron Beacon Journal reported that a family spent $568 to cover vet bills for the time their missing dog spent in a rescue group. Apparently, the dog escaped (or was wandering loose) and picked up by animal control, which released the dog to the rescue group. When the family finally located the dog and contacted the rescue group, a representative of the group expressed concern about the care of the dog and initially refused to return the dog. The group only released the dog after the family paid $568 to cover vet bills incurred while the dog was in the group's care.
Now, I'm certainly not defending the owners (who apparently failed to neuter the dog...terribly irresponsible, in my opnion) and if I was a member of the group, I would have my concerns about the dog's care as well. I do think that if this group was trying to educate the owners about proper pet care, it will not go over well in the end. More likely, the owners are thinking "those crazy animal people forced us to pay over $500 to get our dog back" not "we really need to rethink how we care for A.J."
Interestingly, if you read the reader comments following the story, you'll find a few comments supporting the group as well as many comments along the lines of "this group is crazy." Also, one of the posts is from an individual whose adoption application for this group was denied. With more newspapers offering online forums and reader comments, anyone with a grudge against a particular group can come out of the woodwork...not a good situation for maintaining positive community relations.
Also, check out this post on the Best Friends forum. Kat Albrecht, a detective who specializes in lost pets, points out that for every lost pet held by a rescue, an owner surrender or other animal slated to die at the local shelter, is losing out. Returning a pet, even to a "substandard" home, allows groups to have room to save another in its place.
Being from Virginia, rescue groups and missing pets are a sore spot for me. Back in 2002, a similar situation led to state regulations that among other things, required rescue groups to post hours of operation, meaning that any member of the public could show up at a foster home and demand to see the facilities. Under the law, such individuals could not be turned away.
I believe the law was eventually repealed but the fact remains that if enough such situations occur, other lawmakers might propose similar laws that restrict rescue groups. And, sadly, I fear that the volunteer spirit of rescue could be curtailed due to restrictive regulations. Rescue operations in Virginia are still recovering from the after affects of this bad law.
So I can't help but worry that some of the best intentions of my fellow rescuers could lead to other bad laws and regulations, which could potentially wipe out the rescue movement as we know it.
Just something to consider...
Now, I'm certainly not defending the owners (who apparently failed to neuter the dog...terribly irresponsible, in my opnion) and if I was a member of the group, I would have my concerns about the dog's care as well. I do think that if this group was trying to educate the owners about proper pet care, it will not go over well in the end. More likely, the owners are thinking "those crazy animal people forced us to pay over $500 to get our dog back" not "we really need to rethink how we care for A.J."
Interestingly, if you read the reader comments following the story, you'll find a few comments supporting the group as well as many comments along the lines of "this group is crazy." Also, one of the posts is from an individual whose adoption application for this group was denied. With more newspapers offering online forums and reader comments, anyone with a grudge against a particular group can come out of the woodwork...not a good situation for maintaining positive community relations.
Also, check out this post on the Best Friends forum. Kat Albrecht, a detective who specializes in lost pets, points out that for every lost pet held by a rescue, an owner surrender or other animal slated to die at the local shelter, is losing out. Returning a pet, even to a "substandard" home, allows groups to have room to save another in its place.
Being from Virginia, rescue groups and missing pets are a sore spot for me. Back in 2002, a similar situation led to state regulations that among other things, required rescue groups to post hours of operation, meaning that any member of the public could show up at a foster home and demand to see the facilities. Under the law, such individuals could not be turned away.
I believe the law was eventually repealed but the fact remains that if enough such situations occur, other lawmakers might propose similar laws that restrict rescue groups. And, sadly, I fear that the volunteer spirit of rescue could be curtailed due to restrictive regulations. Rescue operations in Virginia are still recovering from the after affects of this bad law.
So I can't help but worry that some of the best intentions of my fellow rescuers could lead to other bad laws and regulations, which could potentially wipe out the rescue movement as we know it.
Just something to consider...
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
It's October...Let the Black Cat Debate Begin!
Let's see, it is now October 3 and it's the time of year when the leaves are falling, the temperature is dropping (or not!), the pumpkins are coming out, and shelters and rescue groups cease adopting out black cats.
Like many in the animal community, it's been drummed in my head countless times that satanic cults cease animals, particularly black cats, to sacrifice on Halloween. Lately, I've started to question this as well as the common practice of restricting black cat adoptions around this time. This Snopes article questions the claim.
(Most of those unfortunate cats that are discovered disemboweled All Saints morning undoubtedly had their lives cut short by nothing more mundane than coyotes, aggressive dogs, foxes, etc. rather than Satanic cults. People, let's keep our cats inside now...)
Now I'm sure crazy stuff like this happens. On Halloween 2004 some messed up freak apparently crucified a black cat at the Iowa City/Coralville Animal Care & Adoption Center. Then again, this particular shelter also refuses to adopt out black cats just before and after Halloween. It's not clear from the article if someone broke in and killed a cat or just left a stray outside.
I'm rather skeptical about the policy of not adopting out black cats during Halloween season. I mean, that's why shelters and rescues have (or should have) strict adoption guidelines and procedures. Somehow I doubt the mom and dad with two kids in tow will be sacrificing Fluffy to the devil on Halloween.
I think most of the "black cats get sacrificed on Halloween" myth is mostly overblown . Most of the "satanic" sacrifices involve small groups of alienated youth dabbling in the occult. These youth usually sacrifice whatever animal they can find, no matter the color. And these can occur throughout the year. Again, proper adoption procedures will prevent these sick individuals from obtaining sacrificial animals from shelters. The fact that practically all shelters and rescues will not adopt to individuals under 18 without a parent's permission, means such individuals more than likely do not turn to shelters for animals.
(Not to minimize animal cruelty at all; in fact, any youth discovered to be involved in such activity needs an immediate intervention by the authorities.)
In fact this looks to be a remnant of the satanic panic of the early 1980s where overnight Geraldo Rivera and Sally Jesse Rafael became "experts" in satanic ritual abuse. Remember the McMartin fiasco?
All in all, I think normal adoption procedures should weed out the weirdos.
(And FYI in Britain it's white cats that are bad luck. Well, this site says so at least!)
Like many in the animal community, it's been drummed in my head countless times that satanic cults cease animals, particularly black cats, to sacrifice on Halloween. Lately, I've started to question this as well as the common practice of restricting black cat adoptions around this time. This Snopes article questions the claim.
(Most of those unfortunate cats that are discovered disemboweled All Saints morning undoubtedly had their lives cut short by nothing more mundane than coyotes, aggressive dogs, foxes, etc. rather than Satanic cults. People, let's keep our cats inside now...)
Now I'm sure crazy stuff like this happens. On Halloween 2004 some messed up freak apparently crucified a black cat at the Iowa City/Coralville Animal Care & Adoption Center. Then again, this particular shelter also refuses to adopt out black cats just before and after Halloween. It's not clear from the article if someone broke in and killed a cat or just left a stray outside.
I'm rather skeptical about the policy of not adopting out black cats during Halloween season. I mean, that's why shelters and rescues have (or should have) strict adoption guidelines and procedures. Somehow I doubt the mom and dad with two kids in tow will be sacrificing Fluffy to the devil on Halloween.
I think most of the "black cats get sacrificed on Halloween" myth is mostly overblown . Most of the "satanic" sacrifices involve small groups of alienated youth dabbling in the occult. These youth usually sacrifice whatever animal they can find, no matter the color. And these can occur throughout the year. Again, proper adoption procedures will prevent these sick individuals from obtaining sacrificial animals from shelters. The fact that practically all shelters and rescues will not adopt to individuals under 18 without a parent's permission, means such individuals more than likely do not turn to shelters for animals.
(Not to minimize animal cruelty at all; in fact, any youth discovered to be involved in such activity needs an immediate intervention by the authorities.)
In fact this looks to be a remnant of the satanic panic of the early 1980s where overnight Geraldo Rivera and Sally Jesse Rafael became "experts" in satanic ritual abuse. Remember the McMartin fiasco?
All in all, I think normal adoption procedures should weed out the weirdos.
(And FYI in Britain it's white cats that are bad luck. Well, this site says so at least!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)