Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:55 PM
To: Phil Francis
Cc: Scott Crozier
Subject: Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910
Mr Francis, this letter was first sent over three months ago. A response would be appreciated, and please do not direct me to the "Updated February 11, 2008" posting on your Web site - that reeks of cowardice and lawyer speak. Surely your company can do better than that!
February 14, 2008
PetSmart, Inc.
19601 North 27th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85027
RE: Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910
Dear PetSmart Customer Care:
I receive the NYTimes in my email inbox every morning. At the top of the February 8 edition was a video waiting to be clicked, paid for by PETA. As everyone in your company is well aware by now, the imagery shot of animals at Rainbow World Exotics, a supplier of PetSmart, was ghastly and anything but humane. Not wanting to simply take PETA's word for it, I searched your Web site for more information. After reviewing the company's timeline, from its modest beginnings to its current status of almost 1000 stores and billions in annual revenue, the millions raised for charitable work, the in-store vets and adoptions, etc., I was looking forward to reading the PetSmart - The Facts page named "PETA's Campaign Against Rainbow Exotics" to fill me in on, simply, the facts.
As someone who has made countless trips to PetSmart, buying supplies for dogs, cats and fish, both as a young adult and as a grown up with little pet lovers (and future PetSmart shoppers) in tow, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:
You claim to have "...launched a full-scale investigation, including dispatching a team of PetSmart veterinarians and other technical experts to Rainbow’s facility unannounced. We also have carefully reviewed PETA’s video and allegations." Well, for one, where is your video? Surely the numbers your company pulls in would dictate that at least one marketing whiz works there, and would have realized the best way to make this go away would be with video to counter the PETA video. Whether there was something improper going on at Rainbow or not, videotaping your unannounced arrival to the facility would only bolster your credibility. Seeing is believing.
Regarding Bullet Point One:
"While we believe there are always opportunities for improvement in how pets are bred and raised by our pet suppliers, including Rainbow, we found no indication of animal cruelty or mistreatment at Rainbow’s facilities. We do not believe that PETA’s video accurately represents the entire situation."
Which situation does PETA's video represent, then, since you claim to have found zero indication of cruelty? The conditions of the animals in PETA's video can only be described as "cruel."
Regarding Bullet Point Two:
"Rainbow’s employees care about the safety and well-being of the animals they raise."
Which employees, exactly? That statement refuses to address the employees, and conditions, shown in the video, and without factual support is an empty claim.
Regarding Bullet Point Three:
"The PETA representative who recorded the images reportedly failed to raise any concerns of abuse or mistreatment to managers of the facility during her two-month employment."
That's what PETA does, and everyone knows as much whether or not they agree with PETA's tactics. What is motivating you to attempt to redirect so obviously? Does the animosity between PetSmart and PETA somehow trump the welfare of the animals shown?
Regarding Bullet Point Four:
"PETA’s troubling video segment of a Rainbow staff member neutering a rabbit showed some practices that were not in line with generally accepted procedures and that certainly did not meet our standards. We have revisited with Rainbow our expectations for staff training, sterilization and post-operative care. Rainbow has assured us it is committed to meeting these standards and we are holding them to this commitment."
YES, NEUTERING A RABBIT WITH A DULL KNIFE AND BLEACH HANDIWIPES PROBABLY DID NOT MEET YOUR STANDARDS. THAT YOU HAD TO "REVISIT" THESE EXPECTATIONS, AND THAT RAINBOW HAS "ASSURED US," ETC. - INSTEAD OF PROFESSING INNOCENCE, CLAIMING IT WAS A ROGUE EMPLOYEE OR DEMANDING A RETRACTION FROM PETA BECAUSE IT WAS A STAGED SET-UP - SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT WHAT YOUR COMPANY IS WILLING TO EXCUSE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Regarding Bullet Point Five:
"During the period in which the pictures were taken, Rainbow had an attending veterinarian. Since then, and weeks before PETA made its allegations known, Rainbow hired a licensed veterinarian full-time."
This seems indicative of what you must assume to be the intellectual aptitude of your target audience. An "attending" veterinarian is still a veterinarian. Are you claiming that the two months, the period in which the pictures were taken, was not full time; and, that there was a veterinarian, but not a licensed one (?), conducting barbaric acts on animals; and, that those running Rainbow were completely clueless about the goings-on? How is this somehow excusable by a publicly-traded company that presents itself as committed to animal welfare?
The "facts" page continues, and toward the end a "...as with all of our pet suppliers, we will continue to hold them to high standards and expectations and work closely with them to ensure these standards are met" is thrown in for good measure. How can you continue to hold them to standards if you've not yet started? Worse, one of your warehouse and distribution centers, a 230,000 square foot facility, is in Ennis, TX, and not all that distant from Rainbow's Hamilton, TX, location. It would seem that oversight was entirely possible, just not deemed necessary.
What I found on your Web site only strengthened PETA's claims against you, and cemented my decision to not only stop shopping at PetSmart, but to suggest to other pet owners they do their own evaluation before setting foot in one of your stores again. Aside from my personal and professional contacts, I will also strongly suggest to my son, now a teenager and life-long animal lover, that he utilize his command of social networking sites to bring about more public awareness of your position on this matter. I suspect the PETA video is replicating across the Internet exponentially as I write this.
Your claim of finding "no indication of animal cruelty or mistreatment at Rainbow’s facilities" on your visit is certainly not a denial that the cruelty exhibited in the video actually happened. This is reinforced by your other claim that it was an "attending veterinarian" (did he attend college long enough to be called a veterinarian or not?) on duty during the time when the video was shot. Simply put, this means Rainbow's management is at best negligent, and their credibility zero. The conduct of their videotaped employees, "attending" or otherwise, was intentional, and therefore criminal under Texas law.
As it is PetSmart's choice to associate with such barbaric practices in the breeding and trafficking of pets, it is my choice to take my business elsewhere. And misdirection posing as poor word choice does nothing to help your case, with explanations posted such as "The loss of any life is upsetting, and while images of sick pets and death are always difficult to accept, sadly it’s inevitable in nature." Exactly where "in nature" do you find animals caging and intentionally neglecting themselves en masse for our enjoyment? Or did you mean, "inevitable in human nature?"
In closing, I cannot help but wonder how much, if at all, Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910 - which could not be more clear in its definition of what constitutes cruel mistreatment of animals - would apply toward your Phoenix-based operation, if maintaining a position of "plausible deniability" is your company's preferred strategy in handling this sensitive matter. Whatever the rationale, that PetSmart has opted to continue using Rainbow World Exotics as a supplier is distressing. To the animals. It should also be noted, however, that without a policy change more focused on long-term sustainability, the possible repercussions in such an info-saturated and video-dominant age that will eventually affect both PetSmart shareholders and associates alike. Surely that's worth at least one more boardroom discussion.
Sincerely,
PT
Seattle. Washington
From: Bruce Richardson
Sent: Wed, 28 May 2008 5:20 pm
Subject: FW: Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910
Dear PT:
Thank you for your email concerning the PETA allegations.
We do not find it a constructive exercise to enter into point-counterpoint debates on PETA allegations. PETA has conducted similar “investigations” and made similar charges about our stores in the past. None of those claims were substantiated by local animal control and law enforcement agencies, which subsequently conducted their own investigations at PETA’s request and with our full support and cooperation, or by our own internal investigations. We believe its corporate campaign against PetSmart is without factual support.
Our high regard for and focus on the care for pets is on exhibit every day for anyone to see in any of our stores in the U.S. or Canada. We have a number of policies and procedures in place to ensure our small pets are raised and cared for properly and humanely. We believe it makes no sense to give pets great care in the stores and neglect the way they’re bred, cared for and transported before reaching our stores.
We take any claims of mistreatment seriously and thoroughly investigate them, whether they concern our stores or our vendors, and we take corrective steps as appropriate. We believe the information posted on our website adequately addresses the issues we identified in our own investigation of Rainbow. We have since made other unscheduled visits to this vendor and believe the areas where we felt improvement was warranted have been addressed.
We are confident in this vendor’s ability to breed and raise healthy pets and will continue to work with it and all of our vendors to ensure the pets throughout our supply chain are bred, cared for and transported in an ethical and humane way. Again, I encourage you to visit a PetSmart store and see for yourself if the health and safety of our pets meets your expectation.
Sincerely,
Bruce Richardson
Bruce K. Richardson
Director, External Communications
Corporate Communications
Office: 623.587.2662
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment