http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NMHP/
NMHP forum: How can strong-minded people work together?
Question from Maureen:
I'm really glad to see this topic on the No More Homeless Pets forum! I live in an area with lots of shelter and rescue groups. Unfortunately, these groups don't always get along.
My theory is this: Many people who work with animals don't have excellent people skills. We've probably spent a lot of time explaining our positions to people who say, "Why do you spend so much time/energy/money on animals when there are people who need your help?" When we stray from the mainstream, speaking out against pet shops, backyard breeders, tying dogs outside or letting cats roam and have litters, we learn that we are not considered quite normal. And if we go even further and become environmentally concerned, stop eating animals, and refuse to attend circuses and zoos, we become objects of concern in our former social circles.
The more we are forced to defend our beliefs, the more alienated we become. And we learn to feel alienated and even paranoid in our modern culture of animal exploitation. It takes a strong personality to hold onto idealism, and the stronger we get, the more independent we become. Then we try to work together and form coalitions and we often clash with each other. This is really sad, because working together, we could be an incredibly strong force! Have either of the guests encountered these problems in their areas, and if so, how was successful collaboration accomplished?
Response from Linda Young:
This a fundamental question that could have come from just about any community in the country. I really see two situations here: The first has to do with how we present ourselves to the "outside" world, and the second has to do with how we relate to eachother. As far as the accusation that we aren't helping people, I always like to point out that we get dozens of calls every day, and not one of them has ever been from a cat! But on the practical side, we need to recognize that our concern for animals--especially when it leads us to a lifestyle that causes us to live a little differently from others--does make us seem to come from a different culture, or maybe a different planet. After all, it's pretty strange to give up the things that others see as comforts, like meat and fur and such, for the sake of the animals. Especially when it's so prevalant in our society that as soon as an animal becomes inconvenient, it's time to "get rid of it." It's hard to present our views about some of these issues without looking like we're preaching or that we feel like we're morally superior. It takes a lot of tact, and also the appropriate situation. To take an extreme example, telling someone about how cruel circuses are just after they' ve told you how much fun they had at the circus last night is probably not ideal timing.
On the other hand, when one of the more humane "animal-less" circuses comes to town, that gives you a great platform for discussion. Nobody likes gratituous advice, and sometimes we get so passionate about our beliefs that we forget that.
When we do talk about animal welfare topics, it's good to be armed with facts and figures to back up our views. In talking about spay/neuter, for instance, it may turn people off to hear about all the "suffering animals" and the "killing." They may be more receptive if you can talk about how it affects them: "Did you know that 2 billion of our tax dollars are spent each year on sheltering and euthanizing animals?" or "There's a woman on my street who is feeding 30 stray cats, and they are reproducing at an alarming rate, but if she doesn't feed them they will just disperse all over the place, and they'll still be having kittens." It's easy for someone to argue about the emotional aspects, but it's harder for them to ignore the facts. Remember, too, that it's okay to agree to disagree. When we stand out from the crowd, we become conspicuous targets for people who want to start an argument. If you just acknowledge that you'll never agree on that topic so "we might as well talk about something else," it sort of takes the wind out of their sails.
I think you're absolutely right about "animal people" not always having good people skills. Or perhaps it's the other way around. If someone has poor people skills, they find they relate better to animals. The easiest way to get around this is to have a common goal or a particular issue that everyone can agree on. It doesn't need to be a single project, but the more focused you all are, the easier it is to avoid some of the extraneous issues that pull us apart.
We started with a very broad set of objectives, such as humane education, trying to ensure that every animal had proper vet care, eliminating animal cruelty--all admirable goals, but far too broad to do anything except disagree. It was pretty obvious, though, that doing something about overpopulation was imperative. That became our common ground. Figuring out what to do about it brought more disagreement, but we did a lot of homework, looked at those facts and figures, and after analyzing the problem decided what would work best. It wasn't exactly a dispassionate discussion and there may have been some temporarily hurt feelings, but it was hard to argue with the facts and we all managed to come together.
Structure is a good idea. When we started out, it was a matter of contacting a number of groups and asking them to send one representative. That kept the coalition small to begin with, and it was easier to work together. We have since begun to expand to involve other members of our original groups and interested individuals outside of our groups. And once you have a clearly defined goal or project, it's a lot easier to get others on the bandwagon. That structure has been ideal for our project, establishing a spay/neuter clinic, because the collaboration can expand as the amount of work does. The kind of structure you need depends on what your goals/projects are, but if you have to incorporate and get tax-exempt status, there is a certain amount of structure built in. Even if you don't make it official, you should have a president, chairperson, or some sort of accepted leader, and other officers with clearly defined roles.
Regarless of the kind of structure, it's absolutely essential to set some ground rules. The first one should be that you aren't going to criticize the policies or procedures of any other individual or group in the collaboration. I would strongly suggest that you avoid criticizing individuals and groups outside of the collaboration too, because if you're really good at bringing people together, you could find them sitting next to you at the next meeting! A good second rule would be to forget all the gossip you may have heard in the past, and get to know people before passing judgment. The third rule should be, don't pass judgement! Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Accept what you can and ignore the rest. Finally, there is seldom one right way to do things, and trying to force everyone to live up to anyone's standards is just going to alienate them. Think about the results, not which method someone uses to achieve them. (Unless it puts the animals in danger, of course.) Laying these rules out at the beginning, with the participation and suggestions of everyone will make all participants feel more comfortable and keep them focused on the problem at hand rather than at each other's throats.
Needless to say, we will never get everyone on board, and we may lose some along the way, but the whole point is that we can accomplish some pretty awesome things for the animals we care about if we work together. That's eassier to do if we learn to shrug unimportant things off, put aside our personal agendas and personality conflicts and bite our tongues. One thing we can't argue over is the fact that the aniimals need us to work together, and that's more important than any of us as individuals.
Response from Michelle Buckalew:
My first reaction is that this question is one that must hit home with animal advocates across the country. This important animal movement that we find ourselves immersed in, is one that contains elements of love, frustration, idealism and courage. And, Maureen, we can identify with you when you speak of the strength we hold in our beliefs as advocates for the animals. Surely, it is impossible for anyone who works with the homeless companion animals (so many who
are dying) and encounters abuse of animals of any sort to feel lukewarm about the innocent animals' plight.
And, yes, we encounter people who will look at you and ask how can you be concerned about animals when children are hungry. The area here in Memphis has a high poverty rate (which also means that animals are sadly used in many ways to make money, which is another problem in itself). Some of the decision makers in our dealings have asked that very question. It is, quite simply, up to us to interact on a level that will encourage the discussion to continue so we can show them the miracle of the animals we love. In our dealings we must be honest and diplomatic. Strength is sometimes best communicated by a gentle spirit. In many communities, we need to take small steps with the decision makers before we can take giant leaps.
Two separate radio interviews that come to mind in my radio career that best define diplomacy on behalf of the animals were with Michael Mountain and Dr. Jane Goodall. Both of these leaders and diplomats of the movement, explained that we must communicate for the animals' sake so the discussion is one that will continue. The decision makers whom we are seeking to enlighten as to the very real problems, will learn to respect and maybe even look forward to our meetings when seeking solutions, if they think of you in positive terms. Negotiation is not entirely easy, and we must remember we are negotiating for the lives and future of the precious animals when dealing with those decision makers.
So, find ways to communicate the many ways animals are helping in the community and in the world, i.e. serving as loving members in families, pet therapy, service animals, law enforcement and READ dogs in libraries. The list goes on and on in ways that animals enhance our lives, and we must find creative ways to show those who do not know of the miracle of the animals. One suggestion is maybe you or your group can compile a booklet of photographs and positive stories that can be passed on to the decision makers so they can see these many ways. Show compelling photographs and write positive letters showing where the community is benefited by the animals. And, try to show as much diversity as possible, as we seek to bring all citizens in the equation of solving the problems facing the animals.
A coalition as defined by Merriam Webster dictionary is "a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states for joint action." Coalitions are seeking to accomplish something they cannot do as an individual citizen. In a coalition, we can ideally combine energies and resources for the greater good. No More Homeless Pets conference panels will explain to you that you never get a group of people to agree on everything. So when you come together, you must realize this. Work from what you agree on first. And, stay focused on the positive.
Once your coalition or group is formed, your group will undoubtedly encounter some friction with the strong personalities, Do not become discouraged and throw your hands up. Continue to meet on a regular basis and the people who really want to help the animals with the goals and mission defined, will stay the course. Consistency, along with respect for the process and a commitment to the animals, is key to holding the group together. Set goals, follow through with them and document what you are doing for the animals along the way. Focus on the positive and steer clear of personality-driven discussions. If you are planting good seeds, progress will definitely be made for the animals in ways you can only dream of when you first begin. The people who don't want to come together will not. We must realize we cannot change people, but we can change the world. And, we all can learn important lessons from the animals we are seeking to save. Love and forgiveness are two important ones.
Posted on SHARE Yahoo group May 31, 2005