I came across this recently while searching for new stories on pets and why people surrender them…..

'Blaming rescue for pet surrenderment'
June 16, 2008

The excerpts in this story are from that blog. The link above takes you there... Scroll down about half-way on that page

WHY CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT:
Clearly we're not writing so people fully understand our thoughts…

The blog noted above (written by Shell from Pet Rescue who we totally support) seems to have taken our ‘Who Created Death Row’ editorial and – well… not ‘twisted’ its information so much as read into our words, intentions that we never intended.

People tend to seek out information that fits with what they believe. Of course having done that, the mind sort of ‘believes’ everything associated with that ‘picture’ and has a lot of trouble even considering alternative options.

Now far be it for me to get 'nit picky' with a blog but this is important.
Let’s have a look at some comments from the blog referred to above to illustrate what we mean:

QUOTE:
"Since the mainstream media has picked up on the puppy mill issue, instead of heeding the advice of all Australian animal welfare organisations and getting pets out of stores, pet shops have sided with the puppy millers and turned blame to both rescue and owners for the sorry state of pets in Australian society."
END QUOTE

Sorry - pet shops have not 'sided' with puppy mills - it just simply is not true!... Where is the data that shows the thousands of Aussie pet shops across the land have all ‘sided with puppy farmers?’ - Many pet shops do not even sell animals but have been ‘lumped in’ with those that do.

Another blanket statement (after referring to a lack of information at point of sale which we totally agree with)

QUOTE:
"Rescue groups overcome this “pet bounce” by screening and educating adopters, desexing pets and offering a lifetime returns policy - fully believing we have a responsibility to help all owners for the life of their pet."
END QUOTE

Really?...If we could name and shame here without getting into trouble we would!...

So just as the blogger has defended rescue groups for ALL doing the right thing, we’re saying "well yes a LOT of rescue groups do the right thing... but some don't".

The same can also be said of pet shops and ‘professional’ breeders. In fact many well respected registered breeders will even tell you some in their own flock have a lot to answer for. And yes they do!

So my point here is that you can’t wave your hand and say ‘all pet shops are bad’ (which the blogger effectively did) just as you can’t say ‘all rescuers are hoarders or all breeders are backyarders by another name.’

In each case ‘some’ are bad – and in each case we have some personal experience.

NEVER LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY
Let’s look at how actually leaving out some facts affects the sense of some blogs:

QUOTE:
"Rather than stepping up and accepting their part in a system that is failing 400,000 times every year - the pet industry continue to blames unsuspecting owners for ending up in strife….”
END QUOTE

No the (entire) ‘pet industry’ didn’t blame unsuspecting owners for anything.

We did.

Pet Talk Radio! looked at the facts on hand, looked at the number of dogs and cats sold from pet shops – looked at the number of actual pet shops selling live animals, looked at the dumpage/surrender rates and came up with a theory to support the idea that the CONSUMER has a lot to answer for. Cars don't kill people - people who DRIVE cars kill people. Garbage doesn't get dumped on the side of the street PEOPLE dump it there.

QUOTE: (continued from above)
 “...ending up in strife…., and now, (blames) rescue groups for making surrenderment as un-traumatic as possible; all while taking the largest share of the profits (an estimated $4 billion annually)."
END QUOTE

No, sorry… no-one ‘blamed’ rescue groups for anything.

Pet Talk Radio! revealed the fact that one branch of the NSW Animal Welfare League had ‘Surrender A Pet’ day no questions asked.

We felt this made it way too easy for some people to simply ‘get rid of’ their pet and serves only to reinforce the idea that pets are a disposable commodity. We were wholly supported in our comments by many within the AWL itself as it happens!

What that blogger left out was some further information making it seem to the reader that all that money came from the sale of dogs and cats. Clearly it doesn’t.
 
According to Susie Chaseling (www.PetNet.com.au) “the pet care industry has become a major contributor to the national economy to the value of $3.3 billion dollars annually, employing over 37,000 people directly and indirectly.”

So you can see how LEAVING OUT some vital words has changed the sentiment of what we originally wrote about. And wrote about we might add not in support of pet shops, but in support of our own theory that the consumer has a lot more to answer for than most people care to admit.

Please think hard about the language used in all the comments on this issue. Especially from long established and well organised activist groups.
We totally support you and agree you do a wonderful thankless job saving dumped and abandoned animals.

But it’s much easier to create emotive slogans like ‘Prisoners Of Profit’ when you write such open ended ‘blanket’ statements like some of those quoted above.

And who is this 'pet industry’ everyone keeps referring to?

Like it or not animal activists and rescue groups are just as much a part of 'the pet industry' as pet shops, groomers, kennels, multinational pet nutrition and pharmaceutical companies, veterinarians, behaviourists etc although I’d totally agree that rescue groups are the 'garbage collectors' of the industry. (comment meant to be illustrative)

Likewise Pet Talk Radio! is part of both the ‘media’ and ‘the pet industry’.

We support both.
We don’t like a lot about mainstream or even community media just as we don’t like a lot about the current state of ‘the pet industry’… but we still support both.

So our real concern has a lot to do with the language of this debate – like this:

QUOTE:
"This continuing unwillingness to put animal welfare above profits demonstrates exactly why we need these new laws to flush the puss and clean up an industry that refuses to take responsibility for itself."
END QUOTE

'Flush the puss' - a catchy little phrase right?...(referring to the bloggers’ opening statement) it sounds very much like 'flash the cash' as uttered by June Bird in our 2005 interview when referring to buying an animal from a pet shop. (www.saynotobackyardbreeders.com) yes I know it needs updating but the sentiment remains true

C'mon people - we don't need politics, catchy little slogans or this crazy 'us and them' mentality. We need a collective effort from all players ‘in the pet industry’ to work together for the welfare of animals.

BSL has been reversed now in two European countries. It was originally introduced following knee jerk reactions to dog bites. The same knee-jerk reaction saw BSL introduced into NSW.

So let’s not make the same mistakes again and again – no more ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to emotive pictures of puppies and kittens on ‘Death Row’.  The general pet owning public are thoroughly sick of it and the end result is they become ‘softened’ to the images over time. Yes it works initially but after awhile …click – gone!

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING
It’s heartbreaking – yes… no-one is disputing that, but if we were to have ‘truth in advertising’ for every puppy or kitten whose face appeared on a rescue website or local newspaper for adoption would we be able to truthfully say “this dog/cat was surrendered because it was bought on impulse from a newspaper, internet, market or even a pet shop” ?

And while we know there are always exceptions to any rule, unless all parties concerned sit down like the caring and responsible animal lovers we all are and talk these issues through sensibly, a wedge will be driven further and further between disparate groups of people who believe it or not mostly want the same thing.

I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Brian Pickering
Producer/Co-host