Thanks, Melissa! You’re exactly right—when shelter leadership is overwhelmed or under pressure, even genuine offers can feel like criticism. Bridging that gap takes empathy on both sides. Glad the piece resonated with you!
I have a lot of sympathy for the questioner, and I’ve had similar experiences. Ed’s wisdom and guidance are invaluable on this.
However, I think the cavalier attitude towards data at SOME shelters is inexcusable. Orange County repeatedly published numbers that failed basic arithmetic.
It wasn’t the consequence of insufficient staffing. The shelter produced voluminous glossy reports, even as it neglected data integrity.
Let’s assume the advocates that approached OC could have been more diplomatic. But OC having a bunker mentality in the face of such serious errors is still unacceptable.
Thanks MM for your thoughtful comment. You're absolutely right—when both RCDAS and OC display similar bunker mentalities in the face of serious data issues, it points to something deeper and systemic. Diplomacy matters, yes—but so does accountability, especially when public trust and animal lives are at stake. I appreciate you adding this important layer to the conversation.
Thank you, Deb! That means a lot coming from you. I truly appreciate your support—and the work you’re doing to keep these important conversations alive.
We would like to formally clarify that this article does not accurately represent our nonprofit's communication with Ed. Our words were misquoted in a way that mischaracterizes our position. We did not submit the question attributed to us, and had we anticipated this misrepresentation, we would not have participated in the interview. This is concerning because the advice offered doesn't address our actual needs and portrays our organization as less developed than we are, despite our professional communications throughout our interactions. We hope that in future collaborations, all nonprofits will be represented accurately, as terminology like "messy data" undermines the serious issues we're working to address in animal welfare.
Thank you, Lauren (aka familiar colleague), for your feedback. To clarify, the AMA question was a composite drawn from multiple inquiries across different communities facing similar challenges. It was not intended to represent or attribute anything to a specific organization, and no direct quotes from private communications were used.
The phrase “messy data”—placed in quotes—was intended to reflect how some shelters perceive their own internal records, not to characterize the professionalism or capabilities of any nonprofit offering assistance. I understand how the language may have come across and appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
Your organization’s work is both serious and important, and I look forward to accurately representing your perspective in the broader investigative piece, where the full scope and context of your efforts can be addressed.
Thanks again for your continued partnership in advancing transparency and reform in animal welfare.
Ed, no reason U should remember me, @2007, Rabbitmatch vol at South shelter, but reading your posts, and THIS one tops them all, your analysis and suggestions are brilliant. I'm small time boots on ground, yes?? I just HOPE that someone who is able to work for changes is reading !!!!!
Hi Lisa! Of course I remember you—and I’m so glad to hear from you. You may call yourself “small time,” but boots on the ground like yours have always been the soul of this work. Thank you for your kind words—and here’s hoping the right people are indeed paying attention. Stay strong and stay vocal!
This is absolutely spot on!! Often shelter management does not even know what to ask for in the way of assistance, seeing only attacks and criticism.
Thanks, Melissa! You’re exactly right—when shelter leadership is overwhelmed or under pressure, even genuine offers can feel like criticism. Bridging that gap takes empathy on both sides. Glad the piece resonated with you!
I have a lot of sympathy for the questioner, and I’ve had similar experiences. Ed’s wisdom and guidance are invaluable on this.
However, I think the cavalier attitude towards data at SOME shelters is inexcusable. Orange County repeatedly published numbers that failed basic arithmetic.
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/08/lawther-oc-animal-care-is-unable-to-keep-track-of-its-animals/
It wasn’t the consequence of insufficient staffing. The shelter produced voluminous glossy reports, even as it neglected data integrity.
Let’s assume the advocates that approached OC could have been more diplomatic. But OC having a bunker mentality in the face of such serious errors is still unacceptable.
Thanks MM for your thoughtful comment. You're absolutely right—when both RCDAS and OC display similar bunker mentalities in the face of serious data issues, it points to something deeper and systemic. Diplomacy matters, yes—but so does accountability, especially when public trust and animal lives are at stake. I appreciate you adding this important layer to the conversation.
Well-said Ed. Your experience and dedication in the field of animal-sheltering shines through, thanks!
Thank you, Deb! That means a lot coming from you. I truly appreciate your support—and the work you’re doing to keep these important conversations alive.
We would like to formally clarify that this article does not accurately represent our nonprofit's communication with Ed. Our words were misquoted in a way that mischaracterizes our position. We did not submit the question attributed to us, and had we anticipated this misrepresentation, we would not have participated in the interview. This is concerning because the advice offered doesn't address our actual needs and portrays our organization as less developed than we are, despite our professional communications throughout our interactions. We hope that in future collaborations, all nonprofits will be represented accurately, as terminology like "messy data" undermines the serious issues we're working to address in animal welfare.
Thank you, Lauren (aka familiar colleague), for your feedback. To clarify, the AMA question was a composite drawn from multiple inquiries across different communities facing similar challenges. It was not intended to represent or attribute anything to a specific organization, and no direct quotes from private communications were used.
The phrase “messy data”—placed in quotes—was intended to reflect how some shelters perceive their own internal records, not to characterize the professionalism or capabilities of any nonprofit offering assistance. I understand how the language may have come across and appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
Your organization’s work is both serious and important, and I look forward to accurately representing your perspective in the broader investigative piece, where the full scope and context of your efforts can be addressed.
Thanks again for your continued partnership in advancing transparency and reform in animal welfare.
Ed, no reason U should remember me, @2007, Rabbitmatch vol at South shelter, but reading your posts, and THIS one tops them all, your analysis and suggestions are brilliant. I'm small time boots on ground, yes?? I just HOPE that someone who is able to work for changes is reading !!!!!
Hi Lisa! Of course I remember you—and I’m so glad to hear from you. You may call yourself “small time,” but boots on the ground like yours have always been the soul of this work. Thank you for your kind words—and here’s hoping the right people are indeed paying attention. Stay strong and stay vocal!