Sun Bear photos / articles

August 1, 2006

Hi there

Can anyone help me with photos or articles on Sun Bears? Sorry to

sound morbid but I really need those relating to abuse. Its easy for

me to find pictures of fluffy happy Sun Bears, but for me to approach

sponsors and donor I really need to show how bad it can be.

I know there was an article published (I think in the United States)

titled " I want to eat sun bear " . That or something similar would be

" great " . Thanks for your attention - and again, apologies for the

morbidity of it all

Regards

Sonia & Sue

August 1, 2006

>Can anyone help me with photos or articles on Sun Bears? Sorry to

>sound morbid but I really need those relating to abuse. Its easy for

>me to find pictures of fluffy happy Sun Bears, but for me to approach

>sponsors and donor I really need to show how bad it can be.

You are about to repeat the #1 most repeated dimwitted

mistake made by animal advocates.

Study after study after study by the big-bucks people in the

advertising industry has affirmed right across the spectrum of issues

that graphic ads showing cruelty are usually hugely ineffective in

conveying anything beyond the simplest message, because most people

don't want to look at them and change the channel or turn the page or

leave the room when exposed to them.

For example, in seeking funds to fight hunger, a photo of

an appealing but thin child brings back much more money than a photo

of a walking skeleton with a distended belly.

In the animal rescue field, humane societies do infinitely

better publicizing happy animals in " after adoption " photos than

showing unhappy animals in the condition in which they arrived.

Animal advocates tend themselves to have an exaggerated and

abnormal response to graphic photos, and therefore tend to presume

that everyone will, if only they are shown enough blood and guts.

Not so. The person who unflinchingly hacks apart a chicken

carcass for supper is not going to care much about a gross image of

either butchery or vivisection. The way to get to that person is to

develop in him or her a sense of empathy that circumvents his/her

protective coverings of denial and distancing. Direct confrontation

won't do it.

Here is the whole story in statistics.

Of all the major U.S. animal advocacy groups, PETA is the

most closely associated with use of photos showing " how bad it can

be. "

Best Friends is the organization most known for publishing

only happy photos and happy news.

PETA Annual budget

1995 $13.4 million

2004 $25.1 million

Best Friends

1995 $ 2.6 million

2004 $19.9 million

Adjusted for inflation, PETA grew at 5.7% per year.

Best Friends grew at 53.6% per year.

In order to get the opportunity to tell people about the bad

things that are done to sun bears--and get them to donate--you need

to show the fluffy, happy bears. Show the bears who are miserable,

& most folks will just look away.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

August 1, 2006

Good day, animal friends

I am an animal lover from Greece and I would like to say just one

thing concerning the " sad-or-happy pictures " question.

I love animals very much- possibly more than people and my heart is

bleeding every time I see an animal suffering even if it is only in a

picture. Of course I would prefer to see happy photos of happy bears and

dogs lying ang playing under the sun. But this is only half or less of

the truth. We are living in a world where humanity causes the most

appaling and unspeakable tortures to animals. By closing our eyes to

this reality, we cant't help our four-legged friends who suffer. So, in

my opinion, the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, people need

to see happy dogs playing under the sun as a motive to do something

against animal abuse. But they sometimes, just sometimes, need a shock

as well. Sometimes people need to see what is REALLY happening so to

stand up and fight for those who can't fight or speak. Reality has two

sides and both must be showed. Unfortunately, for the time being reality

for animals has no beatiful and sweet face. Let's do the best we can to

change it.

A big thanks to all animal lovers and advocates for their efforts.

With best regards,

Maria Nika,

Greece

Merritt Clifton wrote:

>>Can anyone help me with photos or articles on Sun Bears? Sorry to

>>sound morbid but I really need those relating to abuse. Its easy for

>>me to find pictures of fluffy happy Sun Bears, but for me to approach

>>sponsors and donor I really need to show how bad it can be.

>>

>

> You are about to repeat the #1 most repeated dimwitted

>mistake made by animal advocates.

>

> Study after study after study by the big-bucks people in the

>advertising industry has affirmed right across the spectrum of issues

>that graphic ads showing cruelty are usually hugely ineffective in

>conveying anything beyond the simplest message, because most people

>don't want to look at them and change the channel or turn the page or

>leave the room when exposed to them.

>

> For example, in seeking funds to fight hunger, a photo of

>an appealing but thin child brings back much more money than a photo

>of a walking skeleton with a distended belly.

>

> In the animal rescue field, humane societies do infinitely

>better publicizing happy animals in " after adoption " photos than

>showing unhappy animals in the condition in which they arrived.

>

> Animal advocates tend themselves to have an exaggerated and

>abnormal response to graphic photos, and therefore tend to presume

>that everyone will, if only they are shown enough blood and guts.

>

> Not so. The person who unflinchingly hacks apart a chicken

>carcass for supper is not going to care much about a gross image of

>either butchery or vivisection. The way to get to that person is to

>develop in him or her a sense of empathy that circumvents his/her

>protective coverings of denial and distancing. Direct confrontation

>won't do it.

>

> Here is the whole story in statistics.

>

> Of all the major U.S. animal advocacy groups, PETA is the

>most closely associated with use of photos showing " how bad it can

>be. "

>

> Best Friends is the organization most known for publishing

>only happy photos and happy news.

>

> PETA Annual budget

>

> 1995 $13.4 million

> 2004 $25.1 million

>

> Best Friends

>

> 1995 $ 2.6 million

> 2004 $19.9 million

>

> Adjusted for inflation, PETA grew at 5.7% per year.

>

> Best Friends grew at 53.6% per year.

>

> In order to get the opportunity to tell people about the bad

>things that are done to sun bears--and get them to donate--you need

>to show the fluffy, happy bears. Show the bears who are miserable,

> & most folks will just look away.

>

August 1, 2006

Thank you Merritt for you valuable point of view.

I am very aware that different people in different fields and in different

locales have very differing opinions, and I will definitely keep yours with

the other opinions I have obtained on such matters.

I'm not sure that the word " dimwitted " is appropriate in this forum - let

alone deserved - when actually you are applying it not just to me but also

to the many and well respected people with whom I have discussed this

matter. Also I am not wanting these photos for advertising - but for one to

one meetings with big investors that I have, who have expressed the need to

see what their money would go to.

Nonetheless - it is an interesting point which I have noted.

This does not stop me wanting some pictures - so if anyone else has any,

please forward them

Thank you

Sonia

On 8/1/06, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote:

>

> >Can anyone help me with photos or articles on Sun Bears? Sorry to

> >sound morbid but I really need those relating to abuse. Its easy for

> >me to find pictures of fluffy happy Sun Bears, but for me to approach

> >sponsors and donor I really need to show how bad it can be.

>

> You are about to repeat the #1 most repeated dimwitted

> mistake made by animal advocates.

>

> Study after study after study by the big-bucks people in the

> advertising industry has affirmed right across the spectrum of issues

> that graphic ads showing cruelty are usually hugely ineffective in

> conveying anything beyond the simplest message, because most people

> don't want to look at them and change the channel or turn the page or

> leave the room when exposed to them.

>

> For example, in seeking funds to fight hunger, a photo of

> an appealing but thin child brings back much more money than a photo

> of a walking skeleton with a distended belly.

>

> In the animal rescue field, humane societies do infinitely

> better publicizing happy animals in " after adoption " photos than

> showing unhappy animals in the condition in which they arrived.

>

> Animal advocates tend themselves to have an exaggerated and

> abnormal response to graphic photos, and therefore tend to presume

> that everyone will, if only they are shown enough blood and guts.

>

> Not so. The person who unflinchingly hacks apart a chicken

> carcass for supper is not going to care much about a gross image of

> either butchery or vivisection. The way to get to that person is to

> develop in him or her a sense of empathy that circumvents his/her

> protective coverings of denial and distancing. Direct confrontation

> won't do it.

>

> Here is the whole story in statistics.

>

> Of all the major U.S. animal advocacy groups, PETA is the

> most closely associated with use of photos showing " how bad it can

> be. "

>

> Best Friends is the organization most known for publishing

> only happy photos and happy news.

>

> PETA Annual budget

>

> 1995 $13.4 million

> 2004 $25.1 million

>

> Best Friends

>

> 1995 $ 2.6 million

> 2004 $19.9 million

>

> Adjusted for inflation, PETA grew at 5.7% per year.

>

> Best Friends grew at 53.6% per year.

>

> In order to get the opportunity to tell people about the bad

> things that are done to sun bears--and get them to donate--you need

> to show the fluffy, happy bears. Show the bears who are miserable,

> & most folks will just look away.

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

> original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

> founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

> decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

> We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

> for free sample, send address.]

>

August 1, 2006

> I am an animal lover from Greece and I would like to say just one

>thing concerning the " sad-or-happy pictures " question.

The failure of many years of intensive advocacy to accomplish

much in Greece is a classic illustration of my point.

Several years ago, at approximately the same time, I gave

the same sermon I just gave to this list to separate groups of

activists from Greece and Turkey.

I advised the Greek activists that trying to promote an

Olympic boycott was going to backfire bigtime, by contradicting the

national interest, and that the way to go would be to invite

visitors to become involved with pro-animal campaigns, in a positive

manner, as donors and sponsors.

In particular, I advised against the heavy use of photos of

suffering animals that they seemed to think should be the focal point

of their pre-Olympic efforts.

The Greek activists paid no attention at all, and of course

got nowhere.

The Turks, on the other hand, took a very positive

approach, built a very successful dog & cat sterilization campaign,

publicized their successes, and got a strong new animal protection

law passed, making dog & cat sterilization, rather than killing,

the official animal control modus operandi.

Certainly Turkey does not have anywhere near 100% compliance

with the law--but they have the law, and that is a significant

start, while Greece is still basically right where it was 100 years

ago, even though Greek animal welfare organizations have received

hundreds of times more outside financial help than their Turkish

counterparts.

Now, when international donors think of Greece and Turkey,

they think of horrific photos coming out of Greece, with little

evidence that anyone there is accomplishing anything positive enough

to be worth supporting, but think of successful programs in Turkey

that are well worth a donation.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

August 1, 2006

Dear all

Sorry if I wasnt completely clear - I didnt expect this to turn into a big

discussion. The reason I want the photos is for a sponsorship proposal to 2

investors who particularly want to be able to see the difference they'll

make. We planned to have a page of slight shock photos followed by pictures

of healthy happy bears from another organisation who have been well

rehabilitated (yes, of course with their permission and citing them as an

example organisation).

I hope this clears things up

Thanks to those who have sent me pictures.

On 8/2/06, Edwin Wiek <edwin.wiek wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

> At our facilities' educational center we do use the pictures of badly

> injured or treated animals, however only with the before/after pictures.

> It

> seems to work well if people see there is a way to help out the animals.

> Just a picture of dying or dead animals doesn't work in my opinion. It

> disgusts and scares a lot of people and some people even feel some kind of

> guilt for what others have done to these animals. Most people will run

> away

> from real problems.

>

> Using pictures of other organizations for fundraising might be

> questionable.

>

> Edwin Wiek

>

> Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand

>

> 108 moo 6, Tambon Thamairuak

>

> Amphoe Thayang

>

> 76130 Petchaburi THAILAND

>

> Tel/Fax: +66-32-458135

>

> Mobile +66-90600906

>

> Web: <http://www.wfft.org> www.wfft.org

>

> _____

>

> aapn <aapn%40> [

> aapn <aapn%40>] On Behalf Of Nika

> Maria

> Monday, 31 July, 2006 19:03

> Merritt Clifton

> Cc: aapn <aapn%40>

> Re: Sun Bear photos / articles

>

> Good day, animal friends

>

> I am an animal lover from Greece and I would like to say just one

> thing concerning the " sad-or-happy pictures " question.

> I love animals very much- possibly more than people and my heart is

> bleeding every time I see an animal suffering even if it is only in a

> picture. Of course I would prefer to see happy photos of happy bears and

> dogs lying ang playing under the sun. But this is only half or less of

> the truth. We are living in a world where humanity causes the most

> appaling and unspeakable tortures to animals. By closing our eyes to

> this reality, we cant't help our four-legged friends who suffer. So, in

> my opinion, the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, people need

> to see happy dogs playing under the sun as a motive to do something

> against animal abuse. But they sometimes, just sometimes, need a shock

> as well. Sometimes people need to see what is REALLY happening so to

> stand up and fight for those who can't fight or speak. Reality has two

> sides and both must be showed. Unfortunately, for the time being reality

> for animals has no beatiful and sweet face. Let's do the best we can to

> change it.

>

> A big thanks to all animal lovers and advocates for their efforts.

> With best regards,

> Maria Nika,

> Greece

>

> Merritt Clifton wrote:

>

> >>Can anyone help me with photos or articles on Sun Bears? Sorry to

> >>sound morbid but I really need those relating to abuse. Its easy for

> >>me to find pictures of fluffy happy Sun Bears, but for me to approach

> >>sponsors and donor I really need to show how bad it can be.

> >>

> >

> > You are about to repeat the #1 most repeated dimwitted

> >mistake made by animal advocates.

> >

> > Study after study after study by the big-bucks people in the

> >advertising industry has affirmed right across the spectrum of issues

> >that graphic ads showing cruelty are usually hugely ineffective in

> >conveying anything beyond the simplest message, because most people

> >don't want to look at them and change the channel or turn the page or

> >leave the room when exposed to them.

> >

> > For example, in seeking funds to fight hunger, a photo of

> >an appealing but thin child brings back much more money than a photo

> >of a walking skeleton with a distended belly.

> >

> > In the animal rescue field, humane societies do infinitely

> >better publicizing happy animals in " after adoption " photos than

> >showing unhappy animals in the condition in which they arrived.

> >

> > Animal advocates tend themselves to have an exaggerated and

> >abnormal response to graphic photos, and therefore tend to presume

> >that everyone will, if only they are shown enough blood and guts.

> >

> > Not so. The person who unflinchingly hacks apart a chicken

> >carcass for supper is not going to care much about a gross image of

> >either butchery or vivisection. The way to get to that person is to

> >develop in him or her a sense of empathy that circumvents his/her

> >protective coverings of denial and distancing. Direct confrontation

> >won't do it.

> >

> > Here is the whole story in statistics.

> >

> > Of all the major U.S. animal advocacy groups, PETA is the

> >most closely associated with use of photos showing " how bad it can

> >be. "

> >

> > Best Friends is the organization most known for publishing

> >only happy photos and happy news.

> >

> > PETA Annual budget

> >

> > 1995 $13.4 million

> > 2004 $25.1 million

> >

> > Best Friends

> >

> > 1995 $ 2.6 million

> > 2004 $19.9 million

> >

> > Adjusted for inflation, PETA grew at 5.7% per year.

> >

> > Best Friends grew at 53.6% per year.

> >

> > In order to get the opportunity to tell people about the bad

> >things that are done to sun bears--and get them to donate--you need

> >to show the fluffy, happy bears. Show the bears who are miserable,

> > & most folks will just look away.

> >

>

> __________ NOD32 1.1684 (20060729) Information __________

>

> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

> http://www.eset.com

>

August 1, 2006

Merritt your comments are very welcome - but I feel your approach is rather

too black and white for this very constructive forum we have here. I dont

think you can take isolated incidents - as you have twice now - and globally

apply them to everyone's circumstances in each of their situations. For

example; here you seem to be blaming Nika for Greece's animal abuse history.

I think this forum is best used as an advice giving arena - not a " naughty

school child " berating arena

On 8/1/06, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote:

>

> > I am an animal lover from Greece and I would like to say just one

> >thing concerning the " sad-or-happy pictures " question.

>

> The failure of many years of intensive advocacy to accomplish

> much in Greece is a classic illustration of my point.

>

> Several years ago, at approximately the same time, I gave

> the same sermon I just gave to this list to separate groups of

> activists from Greece and Turkey.

>

> I advised the Greek activists that trying to promote an

> Olympic boycott was going to backfire bigtime, by contradicting the

> national interest, and that the way to go would be to invite

> visitors to become involved with pro-animal campaigns, in a positive

> manner, as donors and sponsors.

>

> In particular, I advised against the heavy use of photos of

> suffering animals that they seemed to think should be the focal point

> of their pre-Olympic efforts.

>

> The Greek activists paid no attention at all, and of course

> got nowhere.

>

> The Turks, on the other hand, took a very positive

> approach, built a very successful dog & cat sterilization campaign,

> publicized their successes, and got a strong new animal protection

> law passed, making dog & cat sterilization, rather than killing,

> the official animal control modus operandi.

>

> Certainly Turkey does not have anywhere near 100% compliance

> with the law--but they have the law, and that is a significant

> start, while Greece is still basically right where it was 100 years

> ago, even though Greek animal welfare organizations have received

> hundreds of times more outside financial help than their Turkish

> counterparts.

>

> Now, when international donors think of Greece and Turkey,

> they think of horrific photos coming out of Greece, with little

> evidence that anyone there is accomplishing anything positive enough

> to be worth supporting, but think of successful programs in Turkey

> that are well worth a donation.

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

> original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

> founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

> decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

> We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

> for free sample, send address.]

>

August 1, 2006

Dear Ms Gibbon and AAPN colleagues,

Working

in the mainstream media myself, I would like to make a few points.

Personally I feel what will or will not work in advertisements to solicit

funds is a matter of subjective value judgements. I know of several animal

welfare campaigns that have used grisly pictures extremely effectively.

Especially, the ones that deal with baby seals in Canada. In India, the

television programme 'HEADS AND TAILS' was enormously popular, precisely

because it aired gory footage of animals being slaughtered, amongst other

reasons of course. I know many people who turned to vegetarianism and

started supporting animal welfare after seeing footage of cruelty on HEADS

AND TAILS on TV. I also recall the enormous impact a video on the live

skinning of karakul lambs had on people. Many people stopped wearing karakul

after watching that footage and started supporting the group that aired it.

Indeed, one of the most stringent criticisms of David Attenborough

documentaries is that they paint an idyllic picture of the world where

animals live in peace, free from human interference whereas the reality is

that they have people breathing down their necks. The noted Guardian

columnist George Monbiot has written on this. Sir David in his last series,

Blue Planet I think it was, took a rather unusual didactic position,

possibly to rectify his fairytale wilderness image.

Interestingly, Sir David Attenborough himself has spoken on the effect of

blood and gore. He mentioned that he has been accused of showing too much

gore on television, ie., hunting scenes and predators killing prey. He

points out that he has only portrayed reality and if his critics actually

saw what was on the cutting floor, they would be even more surprised and

appalled. He has said that it would be patently dishonest not to portray

reality just for the sake of feeling good.

The point is: do Attenborough documentaries encourage people to donate

money for conservation and protection of wild habitats? I am sure they do

but whether they do for the shots of the Serengeti savannah or for the

footage of chimpanzees killing and eating live baboons in Tanzania I do not

know. I suspect we could get arguments either way.

For human welfare programmes, for decades, footage of starving children on

the verge of death has raked in money, most definitely in Kolkata which was

portrayed as a city of slums by Dominique Lapierre in his book entitled

'CITY OF JOY' and the subsequent film of the same name. This is widely

acknowledged as exploitation of poverty and the noted British journalist

Christopher Hitchens has written extensively on the incredible success of

Christian missionary organisations to rake in money by showing pictures of

children with bloated bellies and people dying on the streets in Kolkata.

Bob Geldof has used footage of starving children to great effect in the two

Live Aid concerts.

I personally think, both cruelty and poverty sell well if they suit vested

interests. If you want to tickle people's sentiments, it is much better to

show beggars in Kolkata than to portray it as the intellectual capital of

India that has produced several Nobel laureates. In other words, if you want

to raise money for India, show the slums rather than the computer labs.

I would argue much the same would stand right for animal campaigns. There

are several successful animal rights campaigns(principally anti hunting

campaigns in UK) that have used gory footage that have brought in donations

in cash and kind. Cruelty can repel, but cruelty can also attract.

I think the before and after kind of presentation is a rational way to

depict things when seeking funds and indeed many organisations take this

approach. There is no Holy Grail for setting a fixed parameter for what

campaigns work and what don't. I am sure that statistics exist to suport

cases both for and against using images depicting cruelty. In a newspaper,

we regularly have to consider probable reactions of people to photos and

messages. In subjective moral issues, there is no fixed formula like E=mc2

that would guarantee success and I would venture that it is dishonest to

claim that the solution in this advertising dilemma lies in black and white

when there are many shades of grey in between.

It was enlightening to learn the different views. Best wishes and kind

regards,

Sincerely yours,

On 8/1/06, Sonia Gibbon <sonia.gibbon wrote:

>

> Dear all

>

> Sorry if I wasnt completely clear - I didnt expect this to turn into a big

> discussion. The reason I want the photos is for a sponsorship proposal to

> 2

> investors who particularly want to be able to see the difference they'll

> make. We planned to have a page of slight shock photos followed by

> pictures

> of healthy happy bears from another organisation who have been well

> rehabilitated (yes, of course with their permission and citing them as an

> example organisation).

>

> I hope this clears things up

>

> Thanks to those who have sent me pictures.

>

> On 8/2/06, Edwin Wiek <edwin.wiek wrote:

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > At our facilities' educational center we do use the pictures of badly

> > injured or treated animals, however only with the before/after pictures.

> > It

> > seems to work well if people see there is a way to help out the animals.

> > Just a picture of dying or dead animals doesn't work in my opinion. It

> > disgusts and scares a lot of people and some people even feel some kind

> of

> > guilt for what others have done to these animals. Most people will run

> > away

> > from real problems.

> >

> > Using pictures of other organizations for fundraising might be

> > questionable.

> >

> > Edwin Wiek

> >

> > Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand

> >

> > 108 moo 6, Tambon Thamairuak

> >

> > Amphoe Thayang

> >

> > 76130 Petchaburi THAILAND

> >

> > Tel/Fax: +66-32-458135

> >

> > Mobile +66-90600906

> >

> > Web: <http://www.wfft.org> www.wfft.org

> >

> > _____

> >

> > aapn <aapn%40> [

> > aapn <aapn%40>] On Behalf Of Nika

> > Maria

> > Monday, 31 July, 2006 19:03

> > Merritt Clifton

> > Cc: aapn <aapn%40>

> > Re: Sun Bear photos / articles

> >

> > Good day, animal friends

> >

> > I am an animal lover from Greece and I would like to say just one

> > thing concerning the " sad-or-happy pictures " question.

> > I love animals very much- possibly more than people and my heart is

> > bleeding every time I see an animal suffering even if it is only in a

> > picture. Of course I would prefer to see happy photos of happy bears and

> > dogs lying ang playing under the sun. But this is only half or less of

> > the truth. We are living in a world where humanity causes the most

> > appaling and unspeakable tortures to animals. By closing our eyes to

> > this reality, we cant't help our four-legged friends who suffer. So, in

> > my opinion, the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, people need

> > to see happy dogs playing under the sun as a motive to do something

> > against animal abuse. But they sometimes, just sometimes, need a shock

> > as well. Sometimes people need to see what is REALLY happening so to

> > stand up and fight for those who can't fight or speak. Reality has two

> > sides and both must be showed. Unfortunately, for the time being reality

> > for animals has no beatiful and sweet face. Let's do the best we can to

> > change it.

> >

> > A big thanks to all animal lovers and advocates for their efforts.

> > With best regards,

> > Maria Nika,

> > Greece

> >

> > Merritt Clifton wrote:

> >

> > >>Can anyone help me with photos or articles on Sun Bears? Sorry to

> > >>sound morbid but I really need those relating to abuse. Its easy for

> > >>me to find pictures of fluffy happy Sun Bears, but for me to approach

> > >>sponsors and donor I really need to show how bad it can be.

> > >>

> > >

> > > You are about to repeat the #1 most repeated dimwitted

> > >mistake made by animal advocates.

> > >

> > > Study after study after study by the big-bucks people in the

> > >advertising industry has affirmed right across the spectrum of issues

> > >that graphic ads showing cruelty are usually hugely ineffective in

> > >conveying anything beyond the simplest message, because most people

> > >don't want to look at them and change the channel or turn the page or

> > >leave the room when exposed to them.

> > >

> > > For example, in seeking funds to fight hunger, a photo of

> > >an appealing but thin child brings back much more money than a photo

> > >of a walking skeleton with a distended belly.

> > >

> > > In the animal rescue field, humane societies do infinitely

> > >better publicizing happy animals in " after adoption " photos than

> > >showing unhappy animals in the condition in which they arrived.

> > >

> > > Animal advocates tend themselves to have an exaggerated and

> > >abnormal response to graphic photos, and therefore tend to presume

> > >that everyone will, if only they are shown enough blood and guts.

> > >

> > > Not so. The person who unflinchingly hacks apart a chicken

> > >carcass for supper is not going to care much about a gross image of

> > >either butchery or vivisection. The way to get to that person is to

> > >develop in him or her a sense of empathy that circumvents his/her

> > >protective coverings of denial and distancing. Direct confrontation

> > >won't do it.

> > >

> > > Here is the whole story in statistics.

> > >

> > > Of all the major U.S. animal advocacy groups, PETA is the

> > >most closely associated with use of photos showing " how bad it can

> > >be. "

> > >

> > > Best Friends is the organization most known for publishing

> > >only happy photos and happy news.

> > >

> > > PETA Annual budget

> > >

> > > 1995 $13.4 million

> > > 2004 $25.1 million

> > >

> > > Best Friends

> > >

> > > 1995 $ 2.6 million

> > > 2004 $19.9 million

> > >

> > > Adjusted for inflation, PETA grew at 5.7% per year.

> > >

> > > Best Friends grew at 53.6% per year.

> > >

> > > In order to get the opportunity to tell people about the bad

> > >things that are done to sun bears--and get them to donate--you need

> > >to show the fluffy, happy bears. Show the bears who are miserable,

> > > & most folks will just look away.

> > >

> >

> > __________ NOD32 1.1684 (20060729) Information __________

> >

> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

> > http://www.eset.com

> >

August 2, 2006

Hi,

At our facilities' educational center we do use the pictures of badly

injured or treated animals, however only with the before/after pictures. It

seems to work well if people see there is a way to help out the animals.

Just a picture of dying or dead animals doesn't work in my opinion. It

disgusts and scares a lot of people and some people even feel some kind of

guilt for what others have done to these animals. Most people will run away

from real problems.

Using pictures of other organizations for fundraising might be questionable.

Edwin Wiek

Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand

108 moo 6, Tambon Thamairuak

Amphoe Thayang

76130 Petchaburi THAILAND

Tel/Fax: +66-32-458135

Mobile +66-90600906

Web: <http://www.wfft.org> www.wfft.org

_____

aapn [aapn ] On Behalf Of Nika

Maria

Monday, 31 July, 2006 19:03

Merritt Clifton

Cc: aapn

Re: Sun Bear photos / articles