Questioning and calling out the careerists.

[Animal Rights]

After the recent Priscilla Feral chat on ARZone, there was a lively discussion on my FB page about the role of paid professional careerists in th animal advocacy movement.

Some moments from it...

 

Mark Jordan

 

It was also good and respectful of Tim to not reply, "shitty answer" to a guest. Just like Imber didn't to Watson for not answering her question about zoos, nor did I reply to Anthony Marr's defense of
horse-riding, "WTF?! None of us understand
because we haven't had a horse talk to us and tell us to ignore the ferocious
fight they put up to being broken, it is really o.k., they want to be ridden-
like you have? Did you skip your meds today?" No, we were mature and
understood we got one question and had to let the answer, woefully inadequate
or purposefully avoided or not, sit while the next person went, until the open
session at the end (although I did correct Marr's misunderstanding of my
question and use of the term "buck" -but it was a confusing time with
his two self-appointed defenders interrupting everyone else's questions to him
(and his answers)).

Seems to me, to be a respectful, beneficial
experience, we should be respectful, no matter how much we don't like the
answer, and wait until the open session at the end; then still be respectful,
but say we didn't feel we got a complete answer, or whatever. Looked to me like
Priscilla stayed on for a long open session and then sat on the chat for 15
minutes after the open session ended, and no one chose to ask her anything
more. I saw her still on the chat and some that seemed unfulfilled by her
response still on, but no one asking her for more. Now they complain about it?

 

Roger Yates

 

Mark. Need to clear up a few things about your comments. First, Tim is innocent! I said I thought Priscilla's answer to Will was shitty - and still do. Let's be clear, Priscilla is a highly paid professional animal
advocate who has probably fielded every question
~there is~ about FoA and about animal advocacy in general.

In fact, given that status, common sense would
think a professional would answer even what she thinks are naive questions with
some degree of tolerance. Ms. Feral's first answer to Will was obviously not
adequate in Will's eyes - and I can see his point. The vegetarian/vegan issue
which he raised is live in the animal advocacy community at the present time,
especially the part that Will's question was focused on: groups using the terms
interchangeably which some believe causes confusion.

Instead of addressing that, Priscilla implied that
Will may be among those who insult vegetarians (a claim with no apparently
grounding, although I do not know if they know one another.) Will indicated to
admins that he wanted a follow-up and was asked to wait as per Ms. Feral's
wishes, flying in the face, btw, of the fact that Priscilla asked follow-up
questions - with a "S" - of Paul Watson. Will kindly agreed to wait
and when he finally got around to asking his second question about people
possibly being confused by the two terms being mixed up, Feral dismissed it in
three words: "I'm not confused."

This was a damned disgrace - it was obvious that
Will was not referring to Priscilla. This was simply a pathetic way of avoiding
a perfectly reasonable question, put politely, and following ARZone procedures.

As for everyone waiting until the end, thanks for
the suggestion but ARZone already has a long-running policy of allowing
immediate follow-ups.

Usually guest actually address the questions put
and they are not often used or felt needed. Clearly this was not one of those
occasions because a professional animal advocate decided to take the piss out
of someone daring to ask her a question on a ~chat~ that the guest HERSELF
asked to be involved in.

Pitiful just does not cover it really.

 

Tim Gier

 

Catherine: I am not "carping" about FoA's finances, I'm asking serious questions based on published information available to anyone who takes the time to look for it. I would think that if FoA's financial house
is in order, and I have no reason to doubt that it
is, that Priscilla would be perfectly willing to explain, rather than avoid,
simple questions. Perhaps she is defensive because she is used to being
attacked in some way by others, but as Roger has noted, she requested that she
be given the opportunity to address ARZone's members. It is a shame that in
many ways she seems to have wasted that opportunity.

 

Catherine McLaughlin

 

Roger I'm just confused about how the work that FoA does could possibly be done if they didn't have paid staff =:/

 

Catherine McLaughlin

 

But Tim, given the work they do, spay/neuter, primate sanctuary, projects in africa, marine mammal rescue why is it even an issue? it's not like they're out paying celebrities to "go naked" for the
cause =:/ Why so much scrutiny rather than support?

 

Roger Yates

 

Catherine, Most of the best work I have ever seen in the animal movement has been done by the grassroots volunteers. Not only did they not get paid more than 100,000 dollars each year, they put their own money into
the movement.

Of course, there is a question about whether these
careerists do a ~much better job~ than other animal advocates - they claim they
do, although Priscilla's performance in terms of interacting with other human
beings on ARZone seems less than good to me to be honest.

My initial question was based on animal advocacy in
the age of the internet.

Do we really need these vast wages, huge offices,
etc., in the age of the WWW? If we still do need them, let's hear the
arguments.

If we don't - or we could reduce them drastically -
then millions - millions - will be made available to help animals, rather than
going into the pockets of a few individuals who don't seem to do anything any
better than anyone else.

If you have the arguments that justify these
massive wages and great big offices, I'd be pleased as punch to hear them.

 

Catherine McLaughlin

 

But the work FoA does with sanctuaries and marine mammal rescue those are not done at a grassroots level. In order to be given the responsibility of those tasks, they have to have offices and accountants. They
need a lawyer if they want to stop people hunting in national parks. These are
things that we can't do individually - and as soon as enough people pool their
resources to accomplish these tasks guess what they're called? An Organization
;)

 

Roger Yates

 

Catherine. I know a person in Ireland, a long-time in the animal movement, who not only works with the Green Party (which is in government), but runs a greyhound rescue charity, and several advocacy groups -
AND runs a vital animal rescue and vet centre in Nepal, where things are pretty
bad for nonhuman animals (not that they are good anywhere). Would she take
hundreds of thousands of dollars of the animals' money away from them - she'd
be insulted at the very thought!

 

Roger Yates

 

Catherine. The person I'm referring to engages lawyers when needed and has set up a NGO in Nepal in order to protect the animals there. There are ways and means - and if they ain't, can you imagine for a second that
anyone does 100,000 dollars worth of work MORE than her?

 

Catherine McLaughlin

 

I don't know from big salaries Rog, to be honest I'm a soon-to-be Franciscan and obviously I work for the paper so I will never have to worry about being wealthy LOL. I'm happy that your friend has found ways and
means, not everyone can. FoA has stability and autonomy, and when you are
caring for a couple of hundred primates (and all the other work they do), that
is a necessity. I have no comments or judgement on what Priscilla makes - she
works very hard for FoA.

 

Roger Yates

 

Yeah, well, Priscilla Feral may be worth every penny but I'm not convinced as yet. Her disgraceful behaviour on ARZone does nothing to strengthen the view that the animals are getting a great deal from the FoA set
up.

Let's compromise. Here...'s a rescue centre I used to work with: http://www.freshfieldsrescue.org.uk/index.php/about/vacancies
Note the refs to MINIMUM WAGE.

I have known the founder for years. In fact, I was
working there the day I was nicked for my four year prison sentence. She's
never had two pennies to rub together. She's had cats and hares nailed to her
doors and been through hell for supporting the hunt sabs in a hare coursing
area. I'll put this longtime volunteer or minimum wage earner up against Ms. Feral
~any~ day

 

Catherine McLaughlin

 

I think what bothers me is the idea that we should be putting anyone against anyone else. There is a place for the larger groups, without which, some of the smaller grassroots group would not be able to
accomplish what they do (in the form of grants from FoA). All of us should be
working together to support the good work, not trying to tear it down.

 

Carolyn Bailey

 

Priscilla did make the offer to do her ARZone chat, after I asked her to debate Gary and she declined, yet days later offered to be a guest, if invited. So agreed and we set up a date which Priscilla suggested.

I should make it clear also that Priscilla didn't
control the questions presented to her in the chat. Priscilla accepted every
question I presented her with. Also, at the end Tim asked the group if there
were any more questions for Priscilla, nothing was offered. Priscilla hung
around for about 15 minutes after that, but again, nothing was offered.

I'd invite everyone to read the ARZone transcript
and draw your own conclusions.

http://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blogs/transcript-of-priscilla-ferals

 

 

Roger Yates

 

Loredana. Why? Does having paid staff guarantee that - or are you just guessing?

 

Roger Yates

 

Catherine. I'm all for good work. I have given you two examples of good work that costs next to nothing - or nothing - compared to shelling out the animals' money to careerists.

If it must be this way in the age of the internet, please expla...in how and why.

You say that grassroots groups rely on FoA for
grants. Is that true? For example, if people stopped giving money to careerists
and instead gave it straight to the grassroots and the monkey sanctuaries,
etc., then there would be more money being spent directly on the animals.
millions more in fact.

Surely there needs to be one heck of a good reason
to divert that money into the hands of professional advocates on bloated wages.

I'd invite every national group member to stop
throwing their cash down a big hole, support their grassroots groups with a
percentage they would normally sent to organisations such as FoA, and support
the sanctuaries and anything else they want with another percentage. None of
the animals' cash must end up in the pockets of the careerists if the good work
was directly funded.

Yes?

You may think that, for example, no-one in the
movement got more than the minimum wage of a given country that the calibre of
the staff would decrease. However, it is true? Maybe it is better to have
people who care more about animals than money getting the wages?

I would think a paid professional in this movement
that has SO MUCH work to do would be thinking, what is the MINIMUM I should
take away from the animals; what is the least I can manage on in order to
secure more campaigning funds.

Make sense?

 

Loredana Loy

 

Roger, no, it does not guarantee that, of course not. It's very hard to find, hire, and retain people with passion and integrity who are also highly-skilled. In non-profits there are highly-skilled people who don't
give a damn about the cause but are paid huge $$$
because of their reputation and experience, and also there are incredibly
passionate people who are utterly incompetent, both types are disastrous for
the movement in the long-run. So we need to create groups with great people,
who will dedicate their lives and careers to the movement. To address your
concern, they will not take away money from animals because the work that they
do will have a huge impact (not to mention cover their overhead cost and
produce additional $$$). I think it's the only way to compete with the
well-oiled machine we're up against.

But to your question, "why?" -- because
we need a concerted effort. We need professionalism and most importantly
consistency in message and the way the message is presented and promoted. To be
able to compete with the industry we need to match their level of efficiency.
To achieve that we need to operate like a (successful) business. The only
difference is that we'll be in the business of ending animal exploitation.

 

Catherine McLaughlin

 

Roger we pay animal advocates for the same reason we pay journalists, educators, bus drivers, doctors and others - because we value what they do and appreciate their work. This is a similar argument I hear all the
time about the newspaper. Who wants to pay for news
in the internet age? Is it important to have real journalists, darnit, why
doesn't accurate, well-reported news just grow on trees?

People put their money where their values are. We
pay someone to bring us a cup of coffee that we could make and serve ourselves.
We pay to hear someone play the piano or guitar or make some ridiculous inane
movie. What does it say about us if we begrudge the income of someone who is
working full-time to help animals (and I don't think there is a question that
FoA is effectively doing that)?

And lastly, I don't think animal advocates should
have to take a vow of poverty. As Loredana said, I agree we want to attract
people with talent and pay them for their skills.

 

Tim Gier

 

Hi Catherine, I don't think the question about the value of large & well-funded animal advocacy groups arises because of where individuals decide to put their money. If one chooses to donate $25 or even
$2500 to an animal advocacy group, that's one's
right. But certainly we'd have to agree that what the advocacy group does with
the money matters, wouldn't we?

Imagine that Jane Doe is the president of a
non-profit donation-funded animal advocacy group and that Jane earns $500,000
per year. That would probably cause one to wonder whether the group was being
run efficiently. It probably wouldn't seem to make sense to say that just
because Jane Doe works full-time to help animals that anyone questioning her
income is somehow asking an illegitimate question, would it be? So, just
because people are good people working hard to do the right thing doesn't
therefore mean that they ought not to be willing to respond to questions about
their incomes, or that such questions are out of line.

FoA paid a total of nearly $1.2 Million in salaries
in the year ending April 2009. That's $100,000 every month. The Better Business
Bureau's charity info site says that FoA has only 19 paid staff. That works out
to about $5000 per month on average. Now, the BBB might be wrong, and there are
more staff and so the average wage is actually lower. Or, there might be
volunteers who handle the basic jobs while a small group of highly skilled
employees take home the large salaries. There are other scenarios as well. The
point is, Priscilla knows why these numbers are what they are, and she had the
chance to tell us but didn't.

Roger's points about grassroots activism are simple
and they can be illustrated by asking two questions relative to FoA. What are
the nonhumans getting for the expenditure of $1.2 Million on human salaries? In
the internet age is there no other way to more with less?

 

Roger Yates

 

Loredana & Catherine. A soiciologist may suggest that both of you are presenting me with ideal types of what ~should~ be. I'm all for employing ideal types to help identify what would be best in given
circumstances. However, for them to be of use, we
need to align our ideal type with the reality of the situation - and see what
gives. We have to hold up your model to the real world and, sorry, call me Karl
Marx, but I do not think anyone is worth $100,000.

No one should get more than about 3 times as much
as the lowest paid - and billions of people exist on less than a dollar a day
(please do not mistake that to mean that I think Ms. Feral should get 3 dollars
a day!)

All I ask for is an examination of what we assume
to be right because IT IS - and I think that is entirely reasonable and
essential if the animals are to get the best deal. That is, after all, what we
ALL want, isn't it?

 

Tim Gier

 

Catherine, this is a long comment thread and it is easy to miss what others have said, so I apologize for not responding to you when you addressed me above saying:

"But Tim, given the work they do, spay/neuter, primate sanctuary, projects
in africa, marine mammal rescue why is it even an
issue? it's not like they're out paying celebrities to "go naked" for
the cause =:/ Why so much scrutiny rather than support?"

I don't deny that FoA does good work in the areas
that you mention. I am fairly certain that I've never been critical of those
efforts. But, for instance, in the chat Dustin mentioned that Priscilla travels
monthly to Primarily Primates in Texas. I don't know what it costs for her to do
that (although with airfare, room & board it can't be insignificant) but
does she do it because it is absolutely necessary for her to do it, or because
FoA can afford for her to do it? I am not judging her, I am just asking the
question.

I have seen up close and personal how what were
once considered unnecessary & expensive outlays of money become necessary
and insignificant routine expenditures as the financial wherewithal of an
organization improves. I wouldn't begrudge any group their funding, but I wonder
if large groups with 200,000 donating members wouldn't be doing the movement
more justice if they would still act like scrappy grass roots organizations
without a dime to their names.

 

Susan Cho

 

Are we even asking about the money going towards programs like the ones Catherine mentioned? I thought the main question was about salary. Or does part of Priscilla's personal salary go towards those programs?
Probably not. And maybe sh...e's worth every penny of her salary (and more) in terms
of the corporate world, but if we need to woo her with a hefty salary, then
something is wrong. The same goes for every large organization.

In fact, I think we really get into trouble when
orgs start recruiting marketing professionals who need high salaries and big
budgets in order to do their best work. (I'm not directing this at FoA
specifically)See more

 

 

[Brandon Becker]

It looks like a lot of comments are missing here. Did anyone archive them?

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hi Brandon.
Neither Carolyn nor myself have removed any comments from this thread, I don't think anyone else has either.
I think the reason Roger started this discussion was so that the conversation could happen here, but instead most of it happened under the transcript itself.

Thanks.

[Brandon Becker]

I saw that Roger said "Thanks Lee (and Dustin)" so I assumed they posted comments but removed them sometime later. Do comments automatically get erased if someone removes themself from ARZone? Maybe this is what happened.

[red dog]

I also remember some other comments ... I think I must have posted in this thread too, didn't I? I didn't remove any of my own comments.

[Carolyn Bailey]

When a member leaves ARZone they have a choice of taking their content with them, it would appear that when the FoA employees and their supporters all left en masse, they all deleted their content as well. That's unfortunate, but I guess it's a good way to hide the debate which had taken place under the transcript post, if that was their goal.

No-one from ARZone has removed any comments from this post. Perhaps it was in the actual transcript post that the comments were made ~ http://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blogs/transcript-of-priscilla-ferals.

It's unfortunate that the FoA employees were unable to understand the context of the question Roger had asked, and asked ... and asked. It's also unfortunate they chose to perceive a reasonable question as something more than it was.

[red dog]

Thanks for clearing that up. I probably got the two threads confused.