Sad story
ellen ivy paul
Last year, one of the local bird shops here (an excellent one, by the name
of Animal Exchange, for the benefit of those of you in the
Maryland-DC-Viriginia area) had a Greater Sulphur Crested Cockatoo for
sale. Missy was wild-caught in Australia at least fourteen years ago and
brought to the US by her owner. The owner died and his widow (?) was
unable to care for Missy. She was placed for sale at Animal Exchange, and
it took nearly a year for someone to buy her (had I the 3 grand and a few
more loose screws....). Missy is a wonderful, wonderful bird. She is
beautiful, smart, cuddly, affectionate, talks well - everything you could
want and more. I fell in love with her and couldn't even go in the store
until she had been sold, because I wanted her so badly.
On Saturday, I was in the local Borders. I struck up a conversation with
another customer who was also looking at bird books. She mentioned that
she wanted a cockatoo, and we started talking about various bird shops and
breeders in the area. She told me about this wonderful Greater Sulphur
Crested cockatoo for sale at a shop in Alexandria....it turned out to be
Missy.
I felt as though my heart would break. How could anyone take this
wonderful bird and then just cast her off in less than a year? To another
pet shop, yet - did they even try to find her another home? Yes, I know I
am prejudging and I don't know why they gave her up. I hope it wasn't
some awful tragedy. Short of that, though, I can't help but feel that
they broke their commitment to Missy.
And you all wonder why I wish I could be the one to license people to have
birds. The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all day
today and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now.
Does anyone in the DC area want to take on a wonderful bird? Someone who
really, really loves birds, has experience with cockatoos, knows about the
noise and the mess and the massive doses of time and attention, and who
knows about teflon, chocolate, and avocados? If so, please email me and
I'll give you all the details.
Ellen Paul
--
bla...@aol.com
In article <58hr1q$h...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
paul) writes:
>And you all wonder why I wish I could be the one to license people to
have
>birds. The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all day
>today and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now.
I feel very bad about poor Missy. Cast off, hand around birds are tragic,
although in this case there is no evidence of abuse, only of an unwanted
bird.
However, this call for a license for bird ownership has a vanishingly low
probability of preventing this or any other bird abuse, IMHO. In a modern
state, I beleive, licensing is sold to the public as solving a problem but
in reality is just a revenue raising dodge for a legislating body which is
too craven to tell the public that they are, in effect, raising taxes.
As an example of how ineffectual state licensing is in prevented
irresponsible behavior, just look around your car next time your driving
with all the other state license drivers.
-Philip J. Blanda III
PGP Public key available
ellen ivy paul
In article <19961210040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<bla...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <58hr1q$h...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
>paul) writes:
>
>>And you all wonder why I wish I could be the one to license people to
>have
>>birds. The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all day
>>today and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now.
>
>I feel very bad about poor Missy. Cast off, hand around birds are tragic,
>although in this case there is no evidence of abuse, only of an unwanted
>bird.
>
>However, this call for a license for bird ownership has a vanishingly low
>probability of preventing this or any other bird abuse, IMHO.
I think you are probably right - if the state or fed gov't does the
licensing. Under MY rule, however.....
In a modern
>state, I beleive, licensing is sold to the public as solving a problem but
>in reality is just a revenue raising dodge for a legislating body which is
>too craven to tell the public that they are, in effect, raising taxes.
>
I agree entirely. That's why I want to be appointed to run the show. I
won't charge anything above actual expenses and anything above actual
expenses will go into avian health research. But a whole lot of people
are going to be failing my tests. They can get a second chance, but even
then, lots of folks won't be getting birds if I have my way.
>As an example of how ineffectual state licensing is in prevented
>irresponsible behavior, just look around your car next time your driving
>with all the other state license drivers.
>
Absolutely correct. I'm going to tackle that problem next, when I get
finished with the bird problem. Also, I'm going to force everyone to
read a newspaper (NO, NOT the World Weekly News or the Weekly Reader) once
a day. Everyone will learn not to litter, and to pick up any litter that
they happen to see. People WILL curb their dogs. All in good time, all
in good time.
Ellen
>-Philip J. Blanda III
>
>
--
Ann
ellen ivy paul <ep...@wam.umd.edu> wrote
: <...>
: And you all wonder why I wish I could be the one to license people to
have
: birds. The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all day
: today and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now.
: <...>
: Ellen Paul
If not you, who?
You've mentioned that (1) you earned very good money as a lawyer and (2)
are still licensed to practice in 3 jurisdictions. Particularly with "tax
season" upon us, $3000 is far from an insurmountable obstacle for someone
with your training and experience. Even if someone has already bought
Missy, there will certainly be other hard-to-place birds coming along.
Yes, this is a challenge and I don't want to hear 25 good reasons why you
can't do it...:-). [Don't know that much about tax law?...you're a quick
study, etc. etc. ] Just think about it - constructively.
Ann
cst...@aol.com
<<Does anyone in the DC area want to take on a wonderful bird? Someone
who
really, really loves birds, has experience with cockatoos, knows about the
noise and the mess and the massive doses of time and attention, and who
knows about teflon, chocolate, and avocados? If so, please email me and
I'll give you all the details.>>
Ivy *is* a lovely bird. The store where Ivy is is the place where I
bought Romeo. I don't think that she was given up willingly, though,
Ellen... There was a large collection of birds in the store, and I had
understood that they were there on consignment because the owner died. I
will willingly send the name of the bird store via private e-mail, but
there were breeding pairs of CAGs, plus some lovely, if untamed, baby
Hahns macaws, and various and sundry other birds. Is Ivy part of the
consignment flock?
Chuck
Chuck Stern <and Spike the 'tiel, Tweety the budgie and Romeo the Eclectus>
cst...@aol.com
If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the precipitate
bla...@aol.com
In article <58ji3r$2...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
paul) writes:
>>That's why I want to be appointed to run the show<<
{snip}
>>All in good time, all in good time.<<
Yes! Yes! Ellen for "Maximum Leader"! ;-)
Layne David Dicker
> In article <58hr1q$h...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
> paul) writes:
>
> >And you all wonder why I wish I could be the one to license people to
> have
> >birds. The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all day
> >today and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now.
>
> I feel very bad about poor Missy. Cast off, hand around birds are tragic,
> although in this case there is no evidence of abuse, only of an unwanted
> bird.
>
> However, this call for a license for bird ownership has a vanishingly low
> probability of preventing this or any other bird abuse, IMHO. In a modern
> state, I beleive, licensing is sold to the public as solving a problem but
> in reality is just a revenue raising dodge for a legislating body which is
> too craven to tell the public that they are, in effect, raising taxes.
>
> As an example of how ineffectual state licensing is in prevented
> irresponsible behavior, just look around your car next time your driving
> with all the other state license drivers.
If nothing else, licensing would alert people to the fact that this
feathered thing was more than a nominal undertaking. Next, the required
reading would alert them to some of those particularities. Right off the
bat, there would be less deaths due to teflon, avacado, lead, etc. Next,
some people may just reconsider due to the extent of the committment and
this would surely be a bird that would have otherwise become displaced.
Finally, some people would learn about diet, caging and safety issues
which might save needless suffering.
I ran an adoption service for about 3 years and during that period people
dropped off some 80-90 medium to large parrots and countless Budgies and
Cockatiels. Several of these birds never really recovered from this
experience. It's a real threat to them, a real loss of trust. I think
licensing would help, maybe not much, but enough, especially if you've
ever seen a little frightened cockatoo that just can't bring himself to
trust anyone even though he really wants to. It's heartbreaking.
Layne
ellen ivy paul
In article <01bbe6b5$c7ddede0$2a49...@afrenchs.epix.net>,>: And you all wonder why I wish I could be the one to license people to
>have
>: birds. The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all day
>: today and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now.
>
>: Ellen Paul
>
>If not you, who?
>
>You've mentioned that (1) you earned very good money as a lawyer and (2)
>are still licensed to practice in 3 jurisdictions. Particularly with "tax
>season" upon us, $3000 is far from an insurmountable obstacle for someone
>with your training and experience. Even if someone has already bought
>Missy, there will certainly be other hard-to-place birds coming along.
If I had posted this crap answer, I'd have 27 people jumping down my
throat for flaming. Of course, I suspect Ann is just trying to carry a
pre-existing dislike over from someplace else. But for the information of
everyone else - I go to school full time. I support myself by working in
two jobs - one thirty plus hours per week and the other with variable
hours. I am also an intern for a bird conservation organization. So I
haven't any free time to practice law, even if I wanted to, which would
require taking all 3 licenses back to active status ($1700), and getting
malpractice insurance (?$), and finding clients, etc. You can't just
practice law for a few weeks. I have no training in tax law, and besides,
most tax lawyers handle appeals from adverse decisions and estate
planning, not filing tax returns (that's what tax accountants do). I am
not about to add a few courses in tax law to my load.
I also am responsible enough to know that I have barely enough time for
one bird, let alone two.
>
>Yes, this is a challenge and I don't want to hear 25 good reasons why you
>can't do it...:-). [Don't know that much about tax law?...you're a quick
>study, etc. etc. ] Just think about it - constructively.
>
Are you under the impression that the smiley makes your message less
toxic? It doesn't. Who the hell are you to assume that I have tons of
time on my hands and that it's no big deal to practice law for a few
weeks. The best reason is that I won't take on another bird if I don't
have the time for it - not that I have to justify myself to you.
Ellen
>Ann
>
--
ellen ivy paul
>
>Ivy *is* a lovely bird.
Is "Ivy" the same as "Missy"? The woman I met at Borders was under the
impression that the bird she saw, which was the same bird that was at
Animal Exchange, is still called Missy.
The store where Ivy is is the place where I
>bought Romeo. I don't think that she was given up willingly, though,
>Ellen... There was a large collection of birds in the store, and I had
>understood that they were there on consignment because the owner died.
Are you sure you aren't talking about the original owner - the one who
brought her from Australia, and whose death occasioned her going to Animal
Exchange? You are saying that the person who bought her from Animal
Exchange also died?
I
>will willingly send the name of the bird store via private e-mail, but
>there were breeding pairs of CAGs, plus some lovely, if untamed, baby
>Hahns macaws, and various and sundry other birds. Is Ivy part of the
>consignment flock?
>
Not that I know of. If we are thinking about the same store (near
Landmark Plaza), I think they often have consignment birds (many pet shops
do).
I guess this a big wake-up call to all of us: make arrangements for your
bird in the event of your death.
Ellen
>Chuck
>Chuck Stern <and Spike the 'tiel, Tweety the budgie and Romeo the Eclectus>
>cst...@aol.com
>If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the precipitate
--
cst...@aol.com
<<Is "Ivy" the same as "Missy"? The woman I met at Borders was under the
impression that the bird she saw, which was the same bird that was at
Animal Exchange, is still called Missy.>>
No cancel buttons on AOL's news reader; I realized later that I meant
Missy. A thousand pardons. :-)
<< The store where Ivy is is the place where I
>bought Romeo. I don't think that she was given up willingly, though,
>Ellen... There was a large collection of birds in the store, and I had
>understood that they were there on consignment because the owner died.
Are you sure you aren't talking about the original owner - the one who
brought her from Australia, and whose death occasioned her going to Animal
Exchange? You are saying that the person who bought her from Animal
Exchange also died?>>
<<>will willingly send the name of the bird store via private e-mail, but
>there were breeding pairs of CAGs, plus some lovely, if untamed, baby
>Hahns macaws, and various and sundry other birds. Is Ivy part of the
>consignment flock?
>
Not that I know of. If we are thinking about the same store (near
Landmark Plaza), I think they often have consignment birds (many pet shops
do).>>
This is one down near Marlo's furniture, where the owner makes his own
birdie toys in the back room - he's a skilled carpenter, not one near
Landmark Plaza. OH, I know the one you're thinking of now. It's not
Wilson's.
<<I guess this a big wake-up call to all of us: make arrangements for
your
bird in the event of your death.
Ellen>>
Aye. Please do so, even if you have so much as a finch - the nominal cost
was only $5, but surely a life is worth more than what you paid for it at
a store.
ellen beth kessler
[snip]
>However, this call for a license for bird ownership has a vanishingly
low
>probability of preventing this or any other bird abuse, IMHO. In a
modern
>state, I beleive, licensing is sold to the public as solving a problem
but
>in reality is just a revenue raising dodge for a legislating body
which is
>too craven to tell the public that they are, in effect, raising taxes.
>
>As an example of how ineffectual state licensing is in prevented
>irresponsible behavior, just look around your car next time your
driving
>with all the other state license drivers.
>
>-Philip J. Blanda III
>
I respectfully disagree, Philip. Driving a car is pretty much a
necessity in this day and age so you're going to have the
devil-may-care types, but being owned by a bird is not. I think the
extra steps needed for someone thinking about getting a bird will
eliminate some of the impulse buyers because if they have to do more
than plunk the credit card down by the cash register, they may just say
"forget it." (At least that's how I'd love for the scenario to go!)
Ellen K
David Poole
On 10 Dec 1996 Ellen wrote:
>I think you are probably right - if the state or fed gov't does the
[snip]
>they happen to see. People WILL curb their dogs. All in good time, all
>in good time.
Do I see a vague hint here that a certain Miss Paul may be going for
the first, lady Presidency of the US? It strikes me that you have
some pretty worthwhile policies to start with (G).
Of course Ellen, if you want a bit of practice in the meantime, you
could always pop over here to oust our current Prime Minister (he's a
total waste of space and on his way out in any case) and use the
direct line to the White House to harangue the hell out of Bill C. in
order to establish a Bill of Rights for Parrots (VBG). The precedent
has already been set by the Black Baroness who nagged poor Ronny
Reagan mercilessly and tried to do much the same to George Bush. He
got off very lightly when she was fired!
Dave Poole
--
dave_...@ilsham.demon.co.uk
TORQUAY UK
Dorine Ann McKinnon
But a whole lot of people
>are going to be failing my tests. They can get a second chance, but
even
>then, lots of folks won't be getting birds if I have my way.
Ellen, if you propose to make it so difficult for the purchase of a
bird, that people will be rejected frequently, what do you think will
happen to the poor bird that sits in the pet shop waiting for the
perfect owner? I don't like to see a bird returned to a pet shop
either, but at least the person(s) tried to provide a good home.
There could be many valid reasons for the birds being resold
(allergies, neighbors complaining, death or sickness of the new
owner(s), behavior problems that are not obvious until living with the
bird, etc.)and if the bird was returned "just because I don't want it
anymore" there usually is an underlying reason(s).
By reducing the available owners further you are proposing making the
bird even more difficult to place in a permanent home. Isn't it better
to have it go back once or twice, maybe even three times than to have
it sit there all along? Just my own opinion. Dorine.
ellen ivy paul
In article <32ae2468...@news.demon.co.uk>,
David Poole <dave-...@ilsham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10 Dec 1996 Ellen wrote:
>
>>I think you are probably right - if the state or fed gov't does the
>[snip]
>>they happen to see. People WILL curb their dogs. All in good time, all
>>in good time.
>
>Do I see a vague hint here that a certain Miss Paul may be going for
>the first, lady Presidency of the US?
Not a chance. For one thing, I don't qualify. I'm not corrupt, evil, or
dishonest. For another thing, it's got to be the most thankless job in
the world. And it wouldn't be more than a month before they'd lynch me.
There would probably be some people here who would applaud.
But I was thinking of running for God...
mostly because I've always wanted the left lane reserved exclusively for
me.
It strikes me that you have
>some pretty worthwhile policies to start with (G).
>Dave Poole
>--
> dave_...@ilsham.demon.co.uk
> TORQUAY UK
>
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <58m51t$8...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Dorine Ann McKinnon <jdmc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> But a whole lot of people
>>are going to be failing my tests. They can get a second chance, but
>even
>>then, lots of folks won't be getting birds if I have my way.
>
>
>
>Ellen, if you propose to make it so difficult for the purchase of a
>bird, that people will be rejected frequently, what do you think will
>happen to the poor bird that sits in the pet shop waiting for the
>perfect owner?
Good point, but I forgot to mention that not every pet shop will be
permitted to sell birds. They would actually have to know something about
birds, too. How many times have we read here that the pet shop people
told the bird buyer things like, "Give it lots of grit" "It's a very
quiet bird" "Birds don't need a lot of attention" - or that they failed to
say anything about chocolate, avocado, lead, teflon, cigarette smoke....
I don't like to see a bird returned to a pet shop
>either, but at least the person(s) tried to provide a good home.
>There could be many valid reasons for the birds being resold
>(allergies, neighbors complaining, death or sickness of the new
>owner(s), behavior problems that are not obvious until living with the
>bird, etc.)and if the bird was returned "just because I don't want it
>anymore" there usually is an underlying reason(s).
The owner was allegedly someone who had birds before - so he/she would
have known if he/she had allergies, hissy neighbors, etc. Death would
justify the return of the bird, illness might or might not, depending on
severity and duration. As I said, I realized I was pre-judging, but short
of a personal tragedy, there was no justification for doing this to Missy.
Behavior problems? I have had an emotional nut-case cockatoo for over
three years. I wouldn't dream of giving him up. He adds at least as much
stress to my life as he does joy - but giving him to someone else wouldn't
help the problem. I made a commitment to him and I'm going to keep it.
Good grief - I was going to give up a chance to do field research in
Hawaii because I felt so guilty about leaving him for 3 months (even
though he would have been home with my husband and two other birds).
Anyone who buys a bird and doesn't know that there can be behavioral
problems is *exactly* the kind of person who should be required to be
educated before being permitted to buy a bird.
There was a time when we "gave away" children with autism, Down's
syndrome, and other problems, because "they were too much trouble."
>
>By reducing the available owners further you are proposing making the
>bird even more difficult to place in a permanent home. Isn't it better
>to have it go back once or twice, maybe even three times than to have
>it sit there all along? Just my own opinion. Dorine.
>
I sure would like to know what they did to find Missy a new home before
sending her to another pet shop. I would sure like to know why they gave
her up so quickly. And actually, the owner of the shop where I saw Missy
IS very fussy about who she will sell a bird to - and she genuinely
thought Missy was going to a good home - Missy was there for about a year
before she was sold, and she did just fine there - she had massive amounts
of attention, great care, and lots of other birds to talk to....where she
is now isn't bad, but it isn't the best place for a bird to be - it
doesn't have nearly as much traffic as the first place (which is full of
bird lovers like me who come in to buy nutriberries and then spend 2 hours
playing with the birds), it is bright, all the employees are required to
attend classes given by the owner to learn proper bird care, etc.
I am getting upset again just thinking about poor Missy. Just now, there
was a post that said the owner was moving out of state and so had to sell
the bird. WHAT? You KNOW there has to be more to the story than that -
there is NO LAW against taking your bird with you when you move - even out
of the country. I guess I should be glad that the bird is going to get a
second chance to have a better person - maybe the next one will be someone
who isn't so cavalier about dumping an animal because it has become
inconvenient.
Ellen
--
Ann
: >ellen ivy paul <ep...@wam.umd.edu> wrote
: >
: >: <...>
: >: And you all wonder why I wish I could be the one to license people to
: >have
: >: birds. The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all
day
: >: today and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now.
: >: <...>
: >
: >: Ellen Paul
: >
: >If not you, who?
: >
: >You've mentioned that (1) you earned very good money as a lawyer and (2)
: >are still licensed to practice in 3 jurisdictions. Particularly with
"tax
: >season" upon us, $3000 is far from an insurmountable obstacle for
someone
: >with your training and experience. Even if someone has already bought
: >Missy, there will certainly be other hard-to-place birds coming along.
:
: If I had posted this crap answer, I'd have 27 people jumping down my
: throat for flaming. Of course, I suspect Ann is just trying to carry a
: pre-existing dislike over from someplace else.
Sure, I'm still irritated about the false assertion you posted in rec.birds
[1]...and that you never posted proof or a retraction after I challenged it
[2]. But you are the one who has decided to introduce it (as a red
herring) in this group. Will admit it has been tempting to mention it at
times...when you were ragging on others for not being "big enough to
apologize when they are wrong". But figured you'd just go into a rant
about not having the time to look in DejaNews to see who actually did post
the statement you attributed to me.
: But for the information of
: everyone else - I go to school full time. I support myself by working in
: two jobs - one thirty plus hours per week and the other with variable
: hours. I am also an intern for a bird conservation organization. So I
: haven't any free time to practice law, even if I wanted to, which would
: require taking all 3 licenses back to active status ($1700), and getting
: malpractice insurance (?$), and finding clients, etc. You can't just
: practice law for a few weeks. I have no training in tax law, and
besides,
: most tax lawyers handle appeals from adverse decisions and estate
: planning, not filing tax returns (that's what tax accountants do). I am
: not about to add a few courses in tax law to my load.
I didn't suggest that you should justify how you spend your time. I'm
guilty of saying "That's terrible...someone (else) should do something
about it." myself. You didn't mention it but I probably made a stupid
layperson's mistake in assuming that "three state bars of which I am a
member in good standing" automatically meant that you were licensed to
practice law. But not having a current license wouldn't rule out in-house
legal-type work would it?
: I also am responsible enough to know that I have barely enough time for
: one bird, let alone two.
: >Yes, this is a challenge and I don't want to hear 25 good reasons why
you
: >can't do it...:-). [Don't know that much about tax law?...you're a
quick
: >study, etc. etc. ] Just think about it - constructively.
: Are you under the impression that the smiley makes your message less
: toxic? It doesn't. Who the hell are you to assume that I have tons of
: time on my hands and that it's no big deal to practice law for a few
: weeks. The best reason is that I won't take on another bird if I don't
: have the time for it - not that I have to justify myself to you.
:
: Ellen
I made no such assumption, i.e., that you have "tons of time on my hands".
However, you have posted that the Kentucky Warbler project you're involved
in is finished up for the year...and your TBF bio does state that you were
"nearing completion" of your Master's studies. So it wasn't 100% obvious
that you wouldn't have time to pick up some contract work during UMD's
winter break. (I was thinking along the lines of working for someone else
temporarily, not going back into solo practice.)
I do regret that you elected to interpret my post defensively, as "crap",
"toxic", and "flaming". It was an implied complement; I wouldn't have
mean-spiritedly issued my challenge to someone I felt wasn't capable of
coming up with a constructive scenario to find a good home for the bird
and/or raise the funds to rescue it. You did after all post an offer to
"split the costs" of photocopying some of the 'Tony transcripts' and (my
interpretation) to lend your expertise to ranking their importance...so you
can and do suggest constructive solutions.
Ann
==========
Note: These are exerpts only; for full text see DejaNews or AltaVista.
[1]
Subject: Re: blah blah blah
From: ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul)
Date: 1996/10/31
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Ann <afre...@epix.net> wrote:
> <...>
Dear Ann,
<...>
Aren't you the one who claimed that you get get a permit to keep pet
crows? Do you want to try to back that one up?
Ellen
[2]
From "Ann" <afre...@epix.net>
Date 2 Nov 1996 06:20:11 GMT
Newsgroups rec.birds
:<...>
: Aren't you the one who claimed that you get get a permit to keep pet
: crows? Do you want to try to back that one up?
:
: Ellen
What I'd like to see backed up is your assertion that I ever posted
anything even remotely like that. (It has been established that I have not
e-mailed you.)
Ann
BTW, I'm quite willing to call a truce on this...we agree to disagree.
With the exception of course that you will post the proof for your
assertion.
M.L. Leinneweber
jdmc...@ix.netcom.com(Dorine Ann McKinnon) wrote:
>Ellen, if you propose to make it so difficult for the purchase of a
>bird, that people will be rejected frequently, what do you think will
>happen to the poor bird that sits in the pet shop waiting for the
>perfect owner?
Fewer will be bred since they can't be sold and those bred will cost
more? Thereby reducing the overall number sold, and in the long run,
lead to fewer in pet stores, bad homes and abandoned?
Hopefully, anyway.
Terri
Terri Leinneweber
mte...@pipeline.com
M.L. Leinneweber
ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul) wrote:
>But I was thinking of running for God...
Isn't that position hereditary?
Terri
Terri Leinneweber
mte...@pipeline.com
ellen ivy paul
In article <01bbe79f$6f0a8f80$4b49...@afrenchs.epix.net>,
Ann <afre...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>Sure, I'm still irritated about the false assertion you posted in rec.birds
>[1]...and that you never posted proof or a retraction after I challenged it
I chose not to answer you for several reasons:
1. Every time I did respond to you, you told me why you gave every benefit
of the doubt to JB, but never once thought a single thing I said was
reasonable. So why bother trying again? At a certain point, I realized
that if I had said that the earth revolves around the sun, you would have
found some reason to tell me I was wrong.
2. People had asked that the argument be taken to private email, and, as
you know, I had been trying to do just that. You posted publicly, rather
than emailing privately, so I didn't respond.
3. "Aren't you...." is a question. That's why there was a question mark
at the end of the sentence. The answer, then, should have been "No, I am
not the person who made that statement" or "Yes, I am the person who made
that statement." Oh, I forgot - you are allowed to read intent into a
message, but I'm not.
>[2]. But you are the one who has decided to introduce it (as a red
>herring) in this group. Will admit it has been tempting to mention it at
>times...when you were ragging on others for not being "big enough to
>apologize when they are wrong".
As I have done here numerous times. In case you hadn't noticed. You
probably did notice, but now, as then, your motive appears to be
blow-torching me instead of engaging in discussions. Talk about piling-on
(referring to TS discussion) - now, as then, you are ignoring 99% of what
I write here just to bash me once again.
But figured you'd just go into a rant
>about not having the time to look in DejaNews to see who actually did post
>the statement you attributed to me.
>
>: But for the information of
>: everyone else - I go to school full time. I support myself by working in
>: two jobs - one thirty plus hours per week and the other with variable
>: hours. I am also an intern for a bird conservation organization. So I
>: haven't any free time to practice law, even if I wanted to, which would
>: require taking all 3 licenses back to active status ($1700), and getting
>: malpractice insurance (?$), and finding clients, etc. You can't just
>: practice law for a few weeks. I have no training in tax law, and
>besides,
>: most tax lawyers handle appeals from adverse decisions and estate
>: planning, not filing tax returns (that's what tax accountants do). I am
>: not about to add a few courses in tax law to my load.
>
>I didn't suggest that you should justify how you spend your time. I'm
>guilty of saying "That's terrible...someone (else) should do something
>about it." myself. You didn't mention it but I probably made a stupid
>layperson's mistake
You said it. I didn't.
in assuming that
I guess that's why we shouldn't mouth off about things we don't know
ANYTHING about
"three state bars of which I am a
>member in good standing" automatically meant that you were licensed to
>practice law.
Nope. It means that my privilege to practice has not been suspended,
terminated, or abrogated in any way.
But not having a current license wouldn't rule out in-house
>legal-type work would it?
SHOUT INTENDED: YES IT WOULD. ONE CAN NOT PRACTICE LAW IF ONE'S LICENSES
ARE ON INACTIVE STATUS. IN-HOUSE PRACTICE OF LAW IS STILL PRACTICE OF
LAW. But I'm sure you will find some reason to quarrel with that
statement, too. But OK - you go to law school, pass the bar, and then try
to find a job. Any job. In case you hadn't noticed (read the NYT,
LATimes, Philly Inquirer, DC Post, Time, Newsweek, US News and World
Report, or any other newspaper or newsmag in the past 2 years) - law
school grads aren't having much luck finding jobs these days. So I'll
just waltz over to IBM and tell them I want to work there part-time for a
few weeks. Sure.
>
>: I also am responsible enough to know that I have barely enough time for
>: one bird, let alone two.
>
>: >Yes, this is a challenge and I don't want to hear 25 good reasons why
>you
>: >can't do it...:-). [Don't know that much about tax law?...you're a
>quick
>: >study, etc. etc. ] Just think about it - constructively.
>
>: Are you under the impression that the smiley makes your message less
>: toxic? It doesn't. Who the hell are you to assume that I have tons of
>: time on my hands and that it's no big deal to practice law for a few
>: weeks. The best reason is that I won't take on another bird if I don't
>: have the time for it - not that I have to justify myself to you.
>:
>: Ellen
>
>I made no such assumption, i.e., that you have "tons of time on my hands".
>However, you have posted that the Kentucky Warbler project you're involved
>in is finished up for the year...and your TBF bio does state that you were
>"nearing completion" of your Master's studies. So it wasn't 100% obvious
>that you wouldn't have time to pick up some contract work during UMD's
>winter break.
The KEWA project is a long-term study, but the actual field work occurs
only in the summer. The species is a neotropical migrant, so it breeds
here and then returns to Panama/Mexico. So we do field work only in the
summer, unless someone wants to fund me to do it year-round, in which
case, I'd happily follow the birds back and forth. I am nearing
completion of my master's. Again, I don't have to justify myself to you,
but I am taking a number of undergrad courses needed to apply to doctoral
programs, in addition to my two jobs and internship. Winter break? It's
none of your business what I am doing over my winter break, now is it?
Any more than the rest of my life is any of your business.
(I was thinking along the lines of working for someone else
>temporarily, not going back into solo practice.)
>
See above. Need active licenses, malpractice insurance, and jobs are hard
to come by.
>I do regret that you elected to interpret my post defensively, as "crap",
>"toxic", and "flaming". It was an implied complement;
Sure. Once again, you and everyone else are allowed to read intent into
my messages, but I'm not allowed to read intent into yours.
I wouldn't have
>mean-spiritedly issued my challenge to someone I felt wasn't capable of
>coming up with a constructive scenario to find a good home for the bird
>and/or raise the funds to rescue it. You did after all post an offer to
>"split the costs" of photocopying some of the 'Tony transcripts
Not three grand. Maybe 300. Big diff, especially when split 3 ways. And
even if you GAVE me the money to buy Missy, the bottom line is that I
still don't have the time for her, which is what really matters. Too bad
you and some others don't realize that we should all act responsibly
before
buying a bird.
' and (my
>interpretation) to lend your expertise to ranking their importance...so you
>can and do suggest constructive solutions.
>
Yes, as I have here over the past few months: posting full texts of
information, giving people info about DuPont, CPSC, teflon, CITES, WBCA,
taxonomy and cladistics, suggesting possible means of self=regulations,
etc. What exactly have you contributed of a positive nature?
Ellen
--
Ann
:Subject: Re: Sad story
:From: ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul)
:Date: 1996/12/12
Note: My ISP has not received this message from EllenP so I am
responding from a copy made in DejaNews.
epaul wrote:
>Ann <afre...@epix.net> wrote:
1) My original response was specifically to your comment:
"The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all day today
and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now."
At the time I posted, I didn't realize your words were hyperbole. Your
comment (since snipped) was included at the beginning of my message.
2) Your 'question(s)':
"Aren't you the one who claimed that you get get a permit to keep pet
crows? Do you want to try to back that one up?"
was in a response to my post ref the crow thread...not the blue jay thread.
If your reason for not replying (when I objected) was 'pay back' for not
agreeing with you in the blue jay thread, why not just say so instead of
making a lame attempt to link the two threads, etc. etc.?
:<lots stuff snipped>
:>interpretation) to lend your expertise to ranking their importance...so
you
:>can and do suggest constructive solutions.
:>
:Yes, as I have here over the past few months: posting full texts of
:information, giving people info about DuPont, CPSC, teflon, CITES, WBCA,
:taxonomy and cladistics, suggesting possible means of self=regulations,
:etc. What exactly have you contributed of a positive nature?
:
:Ellen
3) My positive contribution?
At this point, very little. Sadly, it's rec.birds all over again; concern
about
the individual birds (the Blue Jay & Missy) has been lost in the 'adult'
agendas. Your personal insults (directed at me) are kind of entertaining
but it is difficult
for me not to reply when you play your 'victim' card.
So, what I should do is go back to giving readers credit for having the
intelligence and common sense to interpret information for themselves;
i.e., post some more URLs/references.
======= URLs/Refernces
The "JB" (ref the Blue Jay) rec.birds posts EllenP brought up can be found
by doing an Alta Vista (Advanced Query) search:
http://www.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=aq&what=web&fmt=.&text=yes
Note: In case your newsreader splits the above line, cgi-bin is a
hyphenated word.
-----
Fill in the form as follows:
Search the Web Usenet [Click the Usenet radio button]
Selection Criteria:
newsgroups:rec.birds & (from:afrenchs@* OR from:epaul@*)
Start date: 17/oct/96 End date: 2/nov/96
-----
Ellen made an additional "JB" post to the misc.test group on 11/12/96.
Alta Vista does not retain misc.test posts this long but it can be found by
doing a DejaNews search.
http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnsetfilter.html
All you need to fill in are:
Newsgroup: misc.test
Author: epaul@*
-------
R.I.P. references in rec.pets.birds to past history in rec.birds?
If you want to rehash it, EllenP, how about posting to rec.birds instead?
Ann
ellen ivy paul
In article <01bbe871$21f9fb40$2249...@afrenchs.epix.net>,
Ann <afre...@epix.net> wrote:
>:Subject: Re: Sad story
>:From: ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul)
>:Date: 1996/12/12
>
>Note: My ISP has not received this message from EllenP so I am
>responding from a copy made in DejaNews.
>
>epaul wrote:
>>Ann <afre...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>1) My original response was specifically to your comment:
>
>and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now."
>
>comment (since snipped) was included at the beginning of my message.
>
an exclusive right and ability to interpret the tone and intent of others'
messages. You mean you may have missed it this time? So, is it also
possible that you may have erred in your responses to the other thread?
>2) Your 'question(s)':
>
>"Aren't you the one who claimed that you get get a permit to keep pet
>crows? Do you want to try to back that one up?"
>
>was in a response to my post ref the crow thread...not the blue jay thread.
>
>If your reason for not replying (when I objected) was 'pay back' for not
>agreeing with you in the blue jay thread, why not just say so instead of
>making a lame attempt to link the two threads, etc. etc.? And, as I
said, it was a question. That's why there is a question mark at the end
of the sentence. The possible answers were, "yes, I was," or "no, I
wasn't."
I wasn't trying to pay you back for anything. The two threads were
intertwined temporally, as one followed the other without a pause. And
they were about the same general topic - taking birds from the wild in the
U.S., permanently or otherwise.
>
>:<lots stuff snipped>
>
>:>interpretation) to lend your expertise to ranking their importance...so
>you
>:>can and do suggest constructive solutions.
>:>
>:Yes, as I have here over the past few months: posting full texts of
>:information, giving people info about DuPont, CPSC, teflon, CITES, WBCA,
>:taxonomy and cladistics, suggesting possible means of self=regulations,
>:etc. What exactly have you contributed of a positive nature?
>:
>:Ellen
>
>3) My positive contribution?
>
>At this point, very little.
Why is that, Ann? Surely not because of me. I've been posting here on
and off for over 3 years. In all that time, you haven't had the
opportunity to post constructive, informative information even once? And
you are blaming that on me?
Sadly, it's rec.birds all over again; concern
>about
>the individual birds (the Blue Jay & Missy) has been lost in the 'adult'
>agendas.
Bullshit, lady. There have been dozens of threads and discussions in this
newsgroup over the past few months. When do you decide to jump in? When
you see me post something that you feel you can attack with some snide
comments, your protestation that it was a complement [sic]
notwithstanding. Talk about lame attempts at payback.
Your personal insults (directed at me) are kind of entertaining
Yours aren't nearly so clever. They are basically boring and kind of
annoying.
>but it is difficult
>for me not to reply when you play your 'victim' card.
>
I am not your victim or any one elses', even the idiot who is posting
unbelievably obscene messages to me. Funny you should think I'm playing
the victim card, when you were so freaking sympathetic to the ultimate
"poor me" in the blue jay thread (who, by the way, as I suspected, was
lying
about having a federal wildlife rehab license - as I learned in response
to my FOIA request - so if you want to rehash that argument, start by
telling me how its fine for her to do what she did without a license, and
then lie about having a license.)
>So, what I should do is go back to giving readers credit for having the
>intelligence and common sense to interpret information for themselves;
>i.e., post some more URLs/references.
>
Face it, Anne. You have no interest in Missy or anything else except the
opportunity to bomb me. Too bad you don't have anything more productive
to do with your time.
Ellen
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <58q921$e...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,>In <58nr8k$i...@camel1.mindspring.com> mte...@pipeline.com (M.L.
>Leinneweber) writes:
>>
>Perhaps you are not taking into consideration that we all have a
>starting point in learning to care for our birds. Some of us learn
>faster, but all of us have made mistakes in this learning process that
>has cost a bird grief, suffering and sometimes death. I know I have
>made my share. Mostly it is unintentional and hopefully we learn from
>not only our own mistakes, but from other sources as well.
Ah, but you are wrong. This is exactly what I am considering. I am
considering that poor parakeet who I killed by giving it all the grit it
wanted - on the advice of the pet shop owner - there were few pet bird
care books out at the time, and I don't think BirdTalk existed back then -
at least, I had never seen it. I will never forgive myself for not
knowing enough about this precious bird before I got it, or over the
several years that it lived. But now there is a great deal more
information available, and the number of mistakes we make at the expense
of our birds should be dropping drastically. But it doesn't seem to be.
>
>Legislation is not going to do much to help people learn about the care
>of their birds. It will just tax and license the citizens that want the
>birds to pay for the programs that will supposedly "protect" & "teach"
>about bird care.
It will if we actually force people to take a class and/or pass a test
before giving the license. But I made lots of suggestions about how to
actually set up a program and you haven't responded to any of it. It
didn't involve the government at all, and it didn't require licensing -
aren't you even willing to go so far as self-regulation?
Look at HRS for your examples of what our government
>will do to "protect" our kids.
Sorry, what is HRS?
How many have still died while the
>government that we pay, fumbled the ball? Look at our school system if
>you want firsthand examples of how the government "educates" the
>public.
I had a public school education from K-12 and it was a fine education.
What is going on now is less the fault of the government and more the
fault of parents who just don't seem to care if their kids can read,
write, spell, add, subtract, and think.
We seem to be paying for very expensive babysitters here. They
>can't teach because they are to busy trying to maintain order.
I didn't behave in school the way the freshman at the U. of Maryland
behave in classes (when they show up, they read the newspaper, talk with
friends all the way through the lecture, they are never prepared, they are
rude to the professor and to one another) because I was brought up
properly by my parents. These kids come to school with lousy attitudes
from day one. They don't get that from the government. They bring it
from their homes. Stop blaming others for everything. Start looking at
the parents.
Shall we
>duplicate these programs for our pets?
>
I again suggest that the pet shops/AFA/IAS/state and local bird
clubs/breeders/bird owners get together and regulate themselves.
Ellen
>Dorine.
--
Dorine Ann McKinnon
So are you saying that particular bird should sit there unsold, in the
hope that at some unspecified date in the future, maybe, there will be
no more bad homes? In the meantime, while your waiting for your future
utopia, how many birds lives are you willing to make miserable?
Perhaps you are not taking into consideration that we all have a
starting point in learning to care for our birds. Some of us learn
faster, but all of us have made mistakes in this learning process that
has cost a bird grief, suffering and sometimes death. I know I have
made my share. Mostly it is unintentional and hopefully we learn from
not only our own mistakes, but from other sources as well.
Legislation is not going to do much to help people learn about the care
of their birds. It will just tax and license the citizens that want the
birds to pay for the programs that will supposedly "protect" & "teach"
about bird care. Look at HRS for your examples of what our government
will do to "protect" our kids. How many have still died while the
government that we pay, fumbled the ball? Look at our school system if
you want firsthand examples of how the government "educates" the
public. We seem to be paying for very expensive babysitters here. They
can't teach because they are to busy trying to maintain order. Shall we
duplicate these programs for our pets?
Dorine.
M.L. Leinneweber
jdmc...@ix.netcom.com(Dorine Ann McKinnon) wrote:
>So are you saying that particular bird should sit there unsold, in the
>hope that at some unspecified date in the future, maybe, there will be
>no more bad homes? In the meantime, while your waiting for your future
>utopia, how many birds lives are you willing to make miserable?
None.
That's why I work very hard for a program that places 300+ birds a
year in new homes. Birds that were purchased from pet stores by
people who subsequently decided they didn't want the birds.
And that's why I own three previously owned birds. And owned one that
had been in a pet store for 2 1/2 years and then came to live with me
and died of PDD. (And may have infected my whole flock. And never
showed any sign at all until she didn't wake up one morning.
Quarantine was useless in her case since she was asymptomatic for 10
months, and actually died of a heart attack caused by deterioration
due to PDD.)
It seems to me that there is a choice to be made here. Either we
continue to breed them, and sell them to just anyone, and they go from
owner to owner to owner to owner and finally back to a breeder, or get
let loose (in the case of budgies, conures and tiels) , or we make it
a privilege to own birds, and expensive to boot, and tracked by a
license, and hope that only people who really really want them, and
are willing to make a commitment get them.
Terri
Terri Leinneweber
mte...@pipeline.com
Dorine Ann McKinnon
In <58qm4t$s...@camel1.mindspring.com> mte...@pipeline.com (M.L.
birds that you have placed and the next 300+ that you estimate will
need to be placed next year? Not all birds follow your senario, and
not all escaped birds were turned loose purposefully. I don't know
enought about your program to judge the people that it gets it's birds
from, but in reality many birds live longer than their owners and are
going to be multiple home birds no matter what you try to legislate.
Making it more difficult to find homes for birds in general is really
shooting yourself in the foot.
If you really want to help the birds you are placing and prevent their
moving through many different homes, perhaps your organization should
educate as well. I am not refering to the people with whom you place
these birds, I am going to assume that you are doing this, or at least
giving some form of guidence to the "new owners". I am refering to
giving pet care clinics to the general public. To writing articles
about proper care of pet birds and to gearing this program toward
educating the public including answering phone queries about these
birds as well. These types of programs will benefit the birds that are
out there now and maybe even prevent them from needing your relocation
services. We don't need the government to make programs to help our
pets, we can do it more effectively ourselves and probably cheaper too.
I also wish to make comment on the scenario where you state that birds
go from owner to owner and then to breeder. This is not necessarily as
bad as you make it out to be, as many breeders give exemplary care to
their birds and also educate the "new owners" that buy birds from them,
and give support to them on a continuing basis. I am one of these
breeders and I do give this free of charge to anyone who purchases a
bird from me. I also give a subscription to the Pet Bird Report with
every baby that leaves my premises, and any adult bird sold as a pet.
I also offer birdysitting services at certain times of the year, free
of charge to owners that have one of my babies or adult pets. This is
of course, for as long as the bird I sold them is the "only" bird in
their possession. If the bird must be given up for some reason, I will
help the "old owner" in any way I can to find it a good home. So you
see, you are not the only one out there doing "bird work", many others
are as well.
I am sorry you lost one of your beloved pets to a disease that might
also take the others. I hope and pray that this does not happen.
Dorine.
M.L. Leinneweber
jdmc...@ix.netcom.com(Dorine Ann McKinnon) wrote:
>In <58qm4t$s...@camel1.mindspring.com> mte...@pipeline.com (M.L.
>Leinneweber) writes:
>
>And if we do as you propose just what would have happened to the 300+
>birds that you have placed and the next 300+ that you estimate will
>need to be placed next year?
If we do as I propose, the birds will not be sold to people who don't
make a commitment to them so there will not be 300+ that need a new
home because they will have been sold to people who are committed
enough to go to a great deal of trouble to get the bird.
> Not all birds follow your senario, and
>not all escaped birds were turned loose purposefully. I don't know
>enought about your program to judge the people that it gets it's birds
>from, but in reality many birds live longer than their owners and are
>going to be multiple home birds no matter what you try to legislate.
>Making it more difficult to find homes for birds in general is really
>shooting yourself in the foot.
Read it again. The purpose is to cut down on the total number of
birds available. The purpose is to take away the motive of breeders
to flood the market since there will not be an open market. And I'm
specifically referring here to breeders who produce birds for the
chains and the "wholesale" trade, not breeders who sell directly.
>If you really want to help the birds you are placing and prevent their
>moving through many different homes, perhaps your organization should
>educate as well.
Excuse me. What makes you think we don't?
> I am not refering to the people with whom you place
>these birds,
They must qualify as experienced FIRST, and then get a buddy assigned
as well.
>I am going to assume that you are doing this, or at least
>giving some form of guidence to the "new owners".
It is passed out in local stores and vet offices.
> I am refering to giving pet care clinics to the general public.
Monthly meetings open to the public with a speaker qualified in some
aspect of care each month. Out reach in schools, and where ever they
will invite us. Street fairs.
?To writing articles
>about proper care of pet birds and to gearing this program toward
>educating the public including answering phone queries about these
>birds as well.
Yes. we do that as well.
>These types of programs will benefit the birds that are
>out there now and maybe even prevent them from needing your relocation
>services. We don't need the government to make programs to help our
>pets, we can do it more effectively ourselves and probably cheaper too.
Not so. There was a post yesterday on the conure list (and if someone
can find a mailing list and be on it for several months, then you can
be fairly sure that they are not ignorant of at least the rudiments of
proper care) wanting to sell a conure because the 8-month (I think)
conure kept getting jealous and attacking her new baby Grey. This is
the kind of lack of commitment that I have extreme difficulty coping
with. I adopted one of my Senegal babies because nobody else wanted
her -- I was her THIRD owner. She was SIX - COUNT THEM SIX - months
old.
>I also wish to make comment on the scenario where you state that birds
>go from owner to owner and then to breeder.
No I said owner to owner to owner and I meant to indicate the the
chain of owners was several in length and that the bird was made worse
off with each shift and finally got back to the breeder when it was
completely unsuitable as a pet and someone was desperate because the
bird was entirely out of control and miserable.
>This is not necessarily as
>bad as you make it out to be, as many breeders give exemplary care to
>their birds and also educate the "new owners" that buy birds from them,
>and give support to them on a continuing basis.
And the only reason that I objected to the bird going to a breeder is
that breeders use these birds to make more babies who will also be
passed from owner to owner to owner to -- you get the picture.
> I am one of these breeders
Do you sell your babies to stores and to the wholesale trade?
If so, I guess you are one of "those" breeders.
Quite frankly, judging from what I have seen here, the world does not
need one more budgie, cockatiel or lovebird bred for about 3 or 4
years. These birds sit in unqualified stores in appalling conditions
for long lengths of time, then, I guess, die or go back to the
wholesaler.
Then when they get purchased, OFTEN, it is viewed as a mistake
shortly, or the birds are allowed to breed, then the babies have to be
placed somewhere.
And this does not mean I do not like these birds personally. I do. I
just get sick when they are treated as disposable. And they are.
> and I do give this free of charge to anyone who purchases a
>bird from me. I also give a subscription to the Pet Bird Report with
>every baby that leaves my premises, and any adult bird sold as a pet.
>I also offer birdysitting services at certain times of the year, free
>of charge to owners that have one of my babies or adult pets. This is
>of course, for as long as the bird I sold them is the "only" bird in
>their possession. If the bird must be given up for some reason, I will
>help the "old owner" in any way I can to find it a good home. So you
>see, you are not the only one out there doing "bird work", many others
>are as well.
Well, then I guess you are not one of those breeders. And I was not
questioning anyone else's contribution; I never "brag" about what "I"
do unless someone takes me to task about it.
If there were not many, many people committed to helping, there would
be a worse situation than there is now.
>I am sorry you lost one of your beloved pets to a disease that might
>also take the others. I hope and pray that this does not happen.
Yeah. Me too. Thanks.
Terri
Terri Leinneweber
mte...@pipeline.com
Ann
Subject: Re: Sad storyDate: 1996/12/12
Note: My ISP has not received this message from EllenP so I am
responding from a copy made in DejaNews.
:>epaul wrote:
:>>Ann <afre...@epix.net> wrote:
:>
:>1) My original response was specifically to your comment:
:>
:>"The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all day
:>today and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now."
:>At the time I posted, I didn't realize your words were hyperbole.
: You didn't realize it was hyperbole? Why not? You are the one who
: claims an exclusive right and ability to interpret the tone and
: intent of others' messages. You mean you may have missed it this
: time? So, is it also possible that you may have erred in your
: responses to the other thread?
I do claim the exclusive right to form *my own opinions*. My opinion that
you might put your ego 'on hold' in any cooperative venture to rescue Missy
was clearly mistaken.
If you want to know how many readers of rec.birds feel they "erred in your
[their] responses", rec.birds is the appropriate ng for your question.
<...>
:Face it, Anne. You have no interest in Missy or anything else except the
:opportunity to bomb me. <...>
Seen any black helicopters lately, Ellen?
:Ellen
Ann
ellen ivy paul
Dear Santa,
Please be nice to Ann at Christmas. She really doesn't mean to be so
awful. I've read her posts in other newsgroups, and she seems to be a
well-educated, sincere individual. She must have a split personality that
only comes out when she sees me. Don't leave her a lump of coal, Santa.
Leave her a delete key, so she can ignore my messages and won't be forced
to let her nasty other out.
Ellen
In article <01bbe910$b82b13c0$3349...@afrenchs.epix.net>,
Ann <afre...@epix.net> wrote:
>Subject: Re: Sad story
>From: ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul)
>Date: 1996/12/12
>
>Note: My ISP has not received this message from EllenP so I am
>responding from a copy made in DejaNews.
>
>:>epaul wrote:
>:>>Ann <afre...@epix.net> wrote:
>:>
>:>1) My original response was specifically to your comment:
>:>
>:>"The thought of Missy has been haunting me all weekend and all day
>:>today and if I had the money, I'd go get her right now."
>
>:>At the time I posted, I didn't realize your words were hyperbole.
>
>: You didn't realize it was hyperbole? Why not? You are the one who
>: claims an exclusive right and ability to interpret the tone and
>: intent of others' messages. You mean you may have missed it this
>: time? So, is it also possible that you may have erred in your
>: responses to the other thread?
>
>I do claim the exclusive right to form *my own opinions*. My opinion that
>you might put your ego 'on hold' in any cooperative venture to rescue Missy
>was clearly mistaken.
>
Your opinion is that everything I say is wrong. Everything everyone else
says is right. The earth revolves around the sun, Ann. Go ahead. Take a
shot at that. It must be wrong, because I said it. Your opinion is
intellectually bankrupt, devoid of content, but yes - you certainly do
have a right to form it. You have only posted here a few times, and on
how many of those occasions, was your message a response to something I
wrote? How many times did you write to take issue with anything anyone
else wrote? We have seen every facet of every issue discussed from every
point of view here, but somehow, the only one you ever disagree with is
me. What a coincidence!
Seems to me you are the one with the ego problem. You just have to be
sure that everyone knows what you think of me, because after all, your
opinion of me is incredibly important.
>If you want to know how many readers of rec.birds feel they "erred in your
>[their] responses", rec.birds is the appropriate ng for your question.
>
This isn't a popularity poll, Ann. And unlike some people there, I don't
post private email without the permission of the sender, so I can't prove
to you how many letters of support I got - in case you really believe that
we can decide issues on who you like the best - its people like you who
sit on juries and vote for which lawyer had the prettiest dress or made
the best jokes, instead of worrying about the issues.
><...>
>
>:Face it, Anne. You have no interest in Missy or anything else except the
>:opportunity to bomb me. <...>
>
>Seen any black helicopters lately, Ellen?
>
Yes, full of vicious little people, Anne, who all look just like you.
>:Ellen
>
>Ann
>
--
Ann
: <...>
: Leave her [Ann] a delete key, so she can ignore my messages and
: won't be forced to let her nasty other out.
:
: Ellen
And miss the latest installment of 'The Wit and Wisdom of Ellen Ivy Paul'
..
No way, Santa!
Ann
:<...>
Dorine Ann McKinnon
I do see an increased awarness on the part of the people who come to
purchase a bird. I see many more people who are researching before they
buy and looking at not only the babies for sale, but the aviary as a
whole. Checking the cleanliness, water bottles, food in the dishes,
sizes of flights & nest boxes (yes I do let prospective buyers see my
aviaries as I do not believe that the birds will be upset by their
activities, as a matter of fact they seem to enjoy the attention and
really put on a show). Asking very well thought out questions on the
training and behavior patterning of Amazons.
There is always going to be a bottom scale breeder, pet shop owner or
pet owner no matter how hard you try to eradicate them. Overall,
however, the care & husbandry our pet birds receive now is so much more
advanced, especially as new research is made available to the general
public. I also see many more "non pet" people who are willing to accept
that our pets just might "feel, think & have emotional responses" just
like we do.
Perhaps the people who buy the "beginner" birds are themselves
"beginners" and are just forming ideas and concepts. We need to be
available to tutor and guide them insead of dictating to them. We need
our clubs to help them get good husbandry advise and to show them
better ways so that they can learn from our mistakes, instead of making
the same ones for themselves.
I live next door to a Moluccan breeder and down the street from another
Moluccan and Umbrella breeder. During the breeding seasons of our
prospective birds we are usually in almost constant communication with
each other. We also feed for each other when needed and there are many
times when one of us has had a problem that another has found the
solution for. We work as a coordinated unit to benefit our respective
birds and help each other make the least amount of mistakes. This
would not have happened even 10 years ago, when each breeder was so
afraid that someone would find out how to breed the birds and compete
with them that nothing was shared.
We have a long way to go but optimism will get us there faster than
pessimism in the way we deal with others and no amount of legislation
will change this. Dorine.
<58qd9a$j...@rac10.wam.umd.edu> ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy paul)
writes:
>
>In article <58q921$e...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Dorine Ann McKinnon <jdmc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <58nr8k$i...@camel1.mindspring.com> mte...@pipeline.com (M.L.
>>Leinneweber) writes:
>>>
>>Perhaps you are not taking into consideration that we all have a
>>starting point in learning to care for our birds. Some of us learn
>>faster, but all of us have made mistakes in this learning process
that
>>has cost a bird grief, suffering and sometimes death. I know I have
>>made my share. Mostly it is unintentional and hopefully we learn from
>>not only our own mistakes, but from other sources as well.
>
>Ah, but you are wrong. This is exactly what I am considering. I am
>considering that poor parakeet who I killed by giving it all the grit
it
>wanted - on the advice of the pet shop owner - there were few pet bird
>care books out at the time, and I don't think BirdTalk existed back
then -
>at least, I had never seen it. I will never forgive myself for not
>knowing enough about this precious bird before I got it, or over the
>several years that it lived. But now there is a great deal more
>information available, and the number of mistakes we make at the
expense
>of our birds should be dropping drastically. But it doesn't seem to
be.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Legislation is not going to do much to help people learn about the
care
>>of their birds. It will just tax and license the citizens that want
the
>>birds to pay for the programs that will supposedly "protect" &
"teach"
>>about bird care.
>
>It will if we actually force people to take a class and/or pass a test
>before giving the license. But I made lots of suggestions about how
to
>actually set up a program and you haven't responded to any of it. It
>didn't involve the government at all, and it didn't require licensing
-
>aren't you even willing to go so far as self-regulation?
>
>
>
>
> Look at HRS for your examples of what our government
>>will do to "protect" our kids.
>
>Sorry, what is HRS?
>
> How many have still died while the
>>government that we pay, fumbled the ball? Look at our school system
if
>>you want firsthand examples of how the government "educates" the
>>public.
>
>I had a public school education from K-12 and it was a fine education.
>What is going on now is less the fault of the government and more the
>fault of parents who just don't seem to care if their kids can read,
>write, spell, add, subtract, and think.
>
>
>
>
> We seem to be paying for very expensive babysitters here. They
>>can't teach because they are to busy trying to maintain order.
>
>I didn't behave in school the way the freshman at the U. of Maryland
>behave in classes (when they show up, they read the newspaper, talk
with
>friends all the way through the lecture, they are never prepared, they
are
>rude to the professor and to one another) because I was brought up
>properly by my parents. These kids come to school with lousy
attitudes
>from day one. They don't get that from the government. They bring it
>from their homes. Stop blaming others for everything. Start looking
at
>the parents.
>
>
>Shall we
>>duplicate these programs for our pets?
>>
Shirley/Rick
In article <58qd9a$j...@rac10.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu (ellen ivy
paul) wrote:
> How many have still died while the
> >government that we pay, fumbled the ball? Look at our school system if
> >you want firsthand examples of how the government "educates" the
> >public.
>
> I had a public school education from K-12 and it was a fine education.
> What is going on now is less the fault of the government and more the
> fault of parents who just don't seem to care if their kids can read,
> write, spell, add, subtract, and think.
Hi Ellen,
I KNOW this is really off the subject of this thread, but I have two
teenagers (ages 16 and 18) who have been in public schools since
kindergarten. The 18-yr-old just graduated, by the skin of his teeth...not
because he's dumb, but because he wasn't motivated. I spent more time
writing letters to his grammar school and middle school
teachers/counselors than I ever spent writing when I was in school! His
dad and I have been together for 23 years, so he wasn't from a broken
home, and I have a home word processing service that I started almost 15
years ago so I could stay at home to raise my kids instead of putting them
into day care -- so his lack of good grades throughout his K-12 years was
certainly not because we (his dad and I) didn't care if he could read,
write, etc. Thankfully, he was never a behavior/disciplinary problem at
school, and never got mixed up in drugs, alcohol or gangs...so in that
respect, I think we did a good job in that even though he didn't excel in
school, he DID grow up learning how to be a good, decent human being with
a good set of values. My daughter excelled in school until about the 8th
grade. Since then her grades have dropped, and frankly, I can count the
teachers on one hand who have bothered to make a phone call to speak with
me.
My take on the current state of public schools after my two kids went
through them (daughter is a junior this year)? If the child is a good
student to begin with and doesn't ever need any special attention, the
public schools are fine. But if the child has problems learning, being
motivated, or being a self-starter, the public school system fails.
Basically, the teachers, counselors and administrators go through the
motions, but if a child isn't doing well, their attitude is "oh well, too
bad -- I do my part, now your child needs to do theirs!" ... and THAT'S
IT! I all but stood on my head to get my son into a special program when
he was in grammar school. He began to do well, but his test scores were
too high for him to stay in the program, even though his grades were
nearly all F's! So they removed him from the program. Doesn't it make
sense to keep a child where he is excelling, regardless of his "test
scores?" Guess that just made too much sense!!
I could go on, but this isn't the school newsgroup. I'm not trying to
"start" a new thread...just wanted to say that while I believe you are
correct in that a lot of parents are too busy with their own lives to care
much about what their kids are doing, there ARE some of us who have
rearranged our whole lives for our children (as it should be). If I had
chosen to work outside the home, I could have afforded private schools for
them...but I chose to work at home where I could raise them myself instead
of having a stranger raise them. My belief is that while the majority of
day-care workers can keep a child physically safe all day while the parent
is at work, the ones who really care about teaching your child VALUES or
give a hoot about what kind of adult the child will turn out like are few
and far between. At this point in time, I'm proud that mine are decent,
stay-out-of-trouble kids...but I'm not sure what kind of jobs they will be
able to get, based on the minimal education they got in public schools.
Bottom line? Just like you can't make a blanket statement saying that all
vets are bad (or good), you can't blame all parents for the lack of
quality education kids in public schools are getting today either.
--Shirley
"Toto ... do you suppose there is such a place?" --Dorothy
Dorine Ann McKinnon
In <58rqk8$4...@camel2.mindspring.com> mte...@pipeline.com (M.L.
Leinneweber) writes:
>
>jdmc...@ix.netcom.com(Dorine Ann McKinnon) wrote:
>
>>In <58qm4t$s...@camel1.mindspring.com> mte...@pipeline.com (M.L.
>>Leinneweber) writes:
>>
>>And if we do as you propose just what would have happened to the 300+
>>birds that you have placed and the next 300+ that you estimate will
>>need to be placed next year?
>If we do as I propose, the birds will not be sold to people who don't
>make a commitment to them so there will not be 300+ that need a new
>home because they will have been sold to people who are committed
>enough to go to a great deal of trouble to get the bird.
What you do propose, (making people "qualify" for pet birds) will have
immediate impact on the birds now needing homes. You are stating very
clearly that you wish to prevent people from adopting birds (yes, I
understand that you want a commitment)in order to make them
unavailable. These birds needing homes now, will not magically
disappear and if what you propose were to happen, these same birds
would be left homeless and/or miserable, martyred to your cause. I do
not agree with this scenario, will never agree to this scenario and
think that it is cruel to martyr a bird in a pet shop today to possibly
(or not) make things better for another bird that is hypothetical (not
here yet)tomorrow. Every bird deserves a home *today*, even the ones
that are housed in nasty squalid pet shops or with breeders who don't
care enough to provide proper care.....it is *not* the birds fault and
they still deserve a home reguardless of background.
>
>> Not all birds follow your senario, and
>>not all escaped birds were turned loose purposefully. I don't know
>>enought about your program to judge the people that it gets it's
birds
>>from, but in reality many birds live longer than their owners and are
>>going to be multiple home birds no matter what you try to legislate.
>>Making it more difficult to find homes for birds in general is really
>>shooting yourself in the foot.
>Read it again.
I understood what I read the first time. I don't agree with it,
obviously.
The purpose is to cut down on the total number of
>birds available. The purpose is to take away the motive of breeders
>to flood the market since there will not be an open market. And I'm
>specifically referring here to breeders who produce birds for the
>chains and the "wholesale" trade, not breeders who sell directly.
I am not crazy about them either, but their birds still deserve a
chance at a loving home, and many do find such a home regardless of
their start in life.
>
>>If you really want to help the birds you are placing and prevent
their
>>moving through many different homes, perhaps your organization should
>>educate as well.
>Excuse me. What makes you think we don't?
You might have misinterpreted the tone of the statement. Nothing I
wrote had the intent of goading, inflaming or being sarcastic.
I am not on that list, but would have offered advise on how to keep
them both. Sometimes people don't *know* that there is a way that is
available to them to do this. I hope you did offer some advise here on
keeping both. This is not a nasty or sarcastic comment, as that is what
I would have done.
>
>>I also wish to make comment on the scenario where you state that
birds
>>go from owner to owner and then to breeder.
>No I said owner to owner to owner and I meant to indicate the the
>chain of owners was several in length and that the bird was made worse
>off with each shift and finally got back to the breeder when it was
>completely unsuitable as a pet and someone was desperate because the
>bird was entirely out of control and miserable.
I understood your meaning, but stortened it for convenience. Many of
the birds that go through several owners do find someone who does keep
them permanently. Not only that, but the budgies, cockateils and
lovebirds that you claim to be disposible usually are "given" away to
the new owners. Either this would disqualify them from your proposal,
or you would once again be denying a pet bird a home.
>>This is not necessarily as
>>bad as you make it out to be, as many breeders give exemplary care to
>>their birds and also educate the "new owners" that buy birds from
them,
>>and give support to them on a continuing basis.
>And the only reason that I objected to the bird going to a breeder is
>that breeders use these birds to make more babies who will also be
>passed from owner to owner to owner to -- you get the picture.
>
>> I am one of these breeders
>Do you sell your babies to stores and to the wholesale trade?
>If so, I guess you are one of "those" breeders.
>
>Quite frankly, judging from what I have seen here, the world does not
>need one more budgie, cockatiel or lovebird bred for about 3 or 4
>years. These birds sit in unqualified stores in appalling conditions
>for long lengths of time, then, I guess, die or go back to the
>wholesaler.
>
>Then when they get purchased, OFTEN, it is viewed as a mistake
>shortly, or the birds are allowed to breed, then the babies have to be
>placed somewhere.
>
>And this does not mean I do not like these birds personally. I do. I
>just get sick when they are treated as disposable. And they are.
They still deserve *every* chance at a loving home and reducing the
number of these homes is not in their best interest.
>
>> and I do give this free of charge to anyone who purchases a
>>bird from me. I also give a subscription to the Pet Bird Report with
>>every baby that leaves my premises, and any adult bird sold as a pet.
>>I also offer birdysitting services at certain times of the year, free
>>of charge to owners that have one of my babies or adult pets. This
is
>>of course, for as long as the bird I sold them is the "only" bird in
>>their possession. If the bird must be given up for some reason, I
will
>>help the "old owner" in any way I can to find it a good home. So you
>>see, you are not the only one out there doing "bird work", many
others
>>are as well.
>Well, then I guess you are not one of those breeders. And I was not
>questioning anyone else's contribution; I never "brag" about what "I"
>do unless someone takes me to task about it.
I do not take anyone to task, I am just discussing the areas in which I
do not agree with you, and giving my reasons. I thought that you were
doing the same?
>
>If there were not many, many people committed to helping, there would
>be a worse situation than there is now.
>
>>I am sorry you lost one of your beloved pets to a disease that might
>>also take the others. I hope and pray that this does not happen.
>Yeah. Me too. Thanks.
>
>Terri
>Terri Leinneweber
>mte...@pipeline.com
>
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine, and
intellegent discussion aimed at widening both our perspectives has
merrit on this group, as long as it is civil in tone and stated with
respect for each others views. Dorine.
ellen ivy paul
Dear Santa,
Thanks for the early present. I've always wanted a kill file. Now I can
skip right by the nasty drivel from Ann.
Ellen
In article <01bbe94a$431f5840$6b49...@afrenchs.epix.net>,
--