mita Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 ...just trying to imagine a committee of 18 animal rescuers actually making a decision... Good luck to the chairperson. It'd be like herding cats. :) Janey, good questions you asked. I suppose someone is trying to do something to get a 'combined' public voice for rescue. But it seems to be coming from the top, down. Cooperative organising usually starts from the bottom, up. Like if a few rescues get together & nut out how & when they might speak with one voice. And 'grow' a cooperative association from there. Their known identities & track record supply the foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Full marks to them anyway. Not everyone gets it right especially in the beginning and no group suits everyone but few people have a go and at least they are having a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRT RESCUE Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Yes also received an email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowgirl Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Full marks to them anyway. Not everyone gets it right especially in the beginning and no group suits everyone but few people have a go and at least they are having a go. Yep, you beat me to it Steve. I tried to start a similar kind of thing a few years ago, nowhere near on this kind of scale though, it was more about rescues helping each other, offering advice and support, sharing information, etc. The smaller groups were very keen and liked the idea but it was hard getting larger, more established groups on board. In fact a couple were really rude about it, it was like how dare I ask them to be involved when they already knew everything anyway. In the end we scrapped the group and the smaller groups just went about quietly helping each other anyway. I'll be joining NARGA shortly, I'm happy to support them, at least they're giving it a go and trying to make a difference. If it turns out that it's not for me I can always leave, but in the meantime anyone who's got the time, passion and dedication to get something like this off the ground has my support. I liked their intro letter, yes there's room for improvement and with such a wide range of ideas not everything is going to be for everyone, but kudos to them for giving it a go. I'd rather add my for support for something that's got the potential to be great than pooh pooh it and watch them struggle because they didn't have the support they needed in the beginning. Jo xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Full marks to them anyway. Not everyone gets it right especially in the beginning and no group suits everyone but few people have a go and at least they are having a go. Yep, you beat me to it Steve. I tried to start a similar kind of thing a few years ago, nowhere near on this kind of scale though, it was more about rescues helping each other, offering advice and support, sharing information, etc. The smaller groups were very keen and liked the idea but it was hard getting larger, more established groups on board. In fact a couple were really rude about it, it was like how dare I ask them to be involved when they already knew everything anyway. In the end we scrapped the group and the smaller groups just went about quietly helping each other anyway. I'll be joining NARGA shortly, I'm happy to support them, at least they're giving it a go and trying to make a difference. If it turns out that it's not for me I can always leave, but in the meantime anyone who's got the time, passion and dedication to get something like this off the ground has my support. I liked their intro letter, yes there's room for improvement and with such a wide range of ideas not everything is going to be for everyone, but kudos to them for giving it a go. I'd rather add my for support for something that's got the potential to be great than pooh pooh it and watch them struggle because they didn't have the support they needed in the beginning. Jo xx Not sure Id go that far Im not up for joining groups unless Im sure I share their base philosophies etc but I just dont think we should be so hard on anyone prepared to give it a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowgirl Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Not sure Id go that far Im not up for joining groups unless Im sure I share their base philosophies etc but I just dont think we should be so hard on anyone prepared to give it a go. I share their base philosophies. That's why I've decided to join :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I thought their concepts sound a little like an amalgamation of sorts of PACERS and the MDBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) I wouldn't say I've been 'hard' on them. I've already acknowledged that at least someone is trying to do something. It's the construction of the group that I've remarked on. The aim is to be a 'voice' .... and support.... for rescue & rescuers. Associations with such aims usually arise from experienced people working in whatever field needs a 'voice'. So the identity and track record of founding office-bearers & committee are central to its inception (& conception). That's a bottom-up organisation.... taking the 'voice' up to a committee and office-bearers. If that bears resemblance to democracy, you wouldn't be wrong. So identity and track record of founding people & the means by which those officers will be determined, are important to me. That's not being 'hard', it's just needing information & stating a preference. Another issue is set-up for handling moneys (that could be well in place & I just haven't read about it yet... so benefit of the doubt there). Edited February 17, 2013 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphra Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I have been hard on them because I believe if they intend to speak for rescue they need to speak with an experienced, strategic and responsible voice and be open and accountable to their members, including explaining in what rights membership offers them. I sent them an email in response to their letter asking them some questions, including who was on their committee (a question I also asked on their Facebook page). I received no reply to my email and on their Facebook page I was told that committee members would be revealed "eventually". I don't think that's a good enough answer when they expect rescue groups to put their reputations in their hands. On their Facebook page they quoted a piece from PETA with figures suggesting that up to 88% of dogs in US pounds are "purebreds"; even the HSUS only quotes a (probably erroneous figure) of 25%. When I suggested that it was irresponsible of a group intending to speak on behalf of rescue to post inaccurate (as in, completely made-up statistics) without any discussion, I got a sniffy reply saying that they support the general proposition in the piece (that breeders are evil, money-grubbing animal abusers) and they didn't really care if the figures were wrong. While I'm just about willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe they have good intentions; I can't see anything in their available content to suggest they have the capacity, experience, strategic insight or understanding of rescue to do any of what they say they will do. Their heart system rating is a good example of their naivety. There seems to be no point to it, since it's self-rating and seems not to be managed in anyway ... but you can be a rescue member of NARGA by paying a fee anyway. So what is the point of the heart rating? If it's to help the public make choices, it's useless since it's self-rating and anyone can say anything. The survey itself is silly ... it asks rescue if they are "no-kill". In the generally accepted meaning of "no-kill (coming out of Nathan Winograd's work in the US) rescue groups can't be no-kill because the no-kill system is about what pounds do, and rescues are one of the strategies for pounds to use to meet the no-kill aim. So in the context of rescue groups their question about "are you no-kill" makes no sense at all. Whether or not you support the No-Kill movement, I'd expect a group who claim to speak for rescue to have a clear understanding of the important issues and discussions in the field. I wouldn't say I've been 'hard' on them. I've already acknowledged that at least someone is trying to do something. It's the construction of the group that I've remarked on. The aim is to be a 'voice' .... and support.... for rescue & rescuers. Associations with such aims usually arise from experienced people working in whatever field needs a 'voice'. So the identity and track record of founding office-bearers & committee are central to its inception (& conception). That's a bottom-up organisation.... taking the 'voice' up to a committee and office-bearers. If it bears resemblance to democracy, you wouldn't be wrong. So identity and track record of founding people & the means by which those officers will be determined, are important to me. That's not being 'hard', it's just needing information & stating a preference. Another issue is set-up for handling moneys (that could be well in place & I just haven't read about it yet... so benefit of the doubt there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) It's a matter of requiring the kind of information that would show this association has arisen from experienced, knowledgeable representatives of the rescue community & all they stand for. Presently there's not yet one jot of evidence that's been the case. Either in disclosing identities on the founding committee.... or transparent track records in rescue. Why people who work in rescue would sign up to an association that aims to give them a 'voice'... when it's not a democratically founded organisation .... surprises me. Means members have no 'voice' in who supplies the 'voice' ... and, hence, in what they say or publish. And, as Aphra has squirreled out, some of what they've already piublished would not sit well with the beliefs of rescuers. Aphra fits the profile of an experienced, knowledgeable rescuer. Edited February 17, 2013 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I can understand where Aphra is coming from. I think also that many people simply don't understand parliamentary process and how you petition for change and I'd be interested to know how serious this group is about becoming lobbyists. Will they be actual registered lobbyists or just another group hoping to be heard with their emotional pleas and little knowledge. Mita, I also agree with your point about how the org was founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Not one name can I find on their website. Just talks about 'we' .... 'like minds' who got heads together to start the association, followed by all the things 'we' intend to do. Now, as this is not a democratically organised association, that 'we' will remain 'we'.... & not 'you', the members. I did some googling based on the letter sent around. And found some groups behind the name, very local in character. Once again, no evidence of breadth and extent of experienced, knowledgeable rescuers being connected with the inception of the group. Edited February 17, 2013 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I thought their concepts sound a little like an amalgamation of sorts of PACERS and the MDBA. I couldn't see that but there is an area here in rescue politics which is hard to crack and Im not saying any more than that I think the fact that they are having a bit of go is at least some points in their favour for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Go do the research to track the background... & you'll find the ideology from which 'we' (only identity given on their website) works. Explains why it's not a democratically set up association. 'We' already has the answer.... as it progresses from a distinct position. One clue contained in what Aphra squirreled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Go do the research to track the background... & you'll find the ideology from which 'we' (only identity given on their website) works. Explains why it's not a democratically set up association. 'We' already has the answer.... as it progresses from a distinct position. One clue contained in what Aphra squirreled out. This is the reason I think I'd be disinclined to be involved now. When I first heard of it, they were just getting started and hadn't even finalised their incorporation. An association that does not allow members to decide who leads them (or at least allows members to know who leads them) is not one that really interests me a great deal- it's just a small group of people who have an opinion and want a larger body to back that opinion up. Beside that, I will not involve myself in a group that may be associated with PR in any way (and currently, this cannot be confirmed or refuted, either way, because no one knows who is running what). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowgirl Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) This is the reason I think I'd be disinclined to be involved now. When I first heard of it, they were just getting started and hadn't even finalised their incorporation. An association that does not allow members to decide who leads them (or at least allows members to know who leads them) is not one that really interests me a great deal- it's just a small group of people who have an opinion and want a larger body to back that opinion up. Beside that, I will not involve myself in a group that may be associated with PR in any way (and currently, this cannot be confirmed or refuted, either way, because no one knows who is running what). Uh oh, maybe I joined too soon. I've contacted them and asked them to suspend my membership for the time being and said that I would like to know who are on the various committees first. I've also expressed concern about a post on their facebook page involving Pound Rounds. I won't be involved in that. I'd like these two things sorted before I consider re-joining. Edited February 17, 2013 by yellowgirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 This is the reason I think I'd be disinclined to be involved now. When I first heard of it, they were just getting started and hadn't even finalised their incorporation. An association that does not allow members to decide who leads them (or at least allows members to know who leads them) is not one that really interests me a great deal- it's just a small group of people who have an opinion and want a larger body to back that opinion up. Beside that, I will not involve myself in a group that may be associated with PR in any way (and currently, this cannot be confirmed or refuted, either way, because no one knows who is running what). Uh oh, maybe I joined too soon. I've contacted them and asked them to suspend my membership for the time being and said that I would like to know who are on the various committees first. I've also expressed concern about a post on their facebook page involving Pound Rounds. I won't be involved in that. I'd like these two things sorted before I consider re-joining. Especially given the latest craziness with PR posting up all those names of other rescuers :/ Personally, I think first step should be to establish guidelines, even if they are just very basic. Something like.. "member rescue groups will not operate in such a way as to severely damage the reputation of rescue in general" - i.e rescue groups will not rehome dangerous dogs all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 What's the FB link to NARGA? An organisation speaking for rescue should consist of representatives from those in already existing rescues. I'd be suspicious of any group that suddenly appear out of nowhere and refuse to answer questions or be transparent about who are involved. If they have mentioned PR in any sort of positive manner then I'd run like crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowgirl Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 The PR post has gone from their fb page Now for a list of the committee members :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 The PR post has gone from their fb page Now for a list of the committee members :) What did the PR post say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now