 |
| Shameless plug – adopt Ernie! |
You know I’m all about the notion that better photos can help dogs get adopted. It’s logical, after all. I’m always drawn to a photo of a pup with more personality. (Speaking of personality… at right, you’ll see a photo I took when I volunteered at a local shelter last month.)
Anyway, today I’m here to share a story about something that strikes me as completely illogical. Let’s say you’re a shelter… you have a crappy camera and have some crappy photos of adoptable dogs up on your website. An employee decides to use her higher-quality DSLR to snap some photos of dogs scheduled to be euthanized and shares them in hopes of finding a rescue group or potential adopter who could save the dogs.
This woman displayed initiative, saw a problem, and took steps to improve the situation. Sounds like Employee of the Year material to me. In reality, she joined the ranks of the unemployed.
According to the New York Times, Emily Tanen was fired from Animal Care and Control of New York City for taking photographs of animals scheduled to be euthanized. Why? Her photographs apparently violated her employer’s rules regarding photos – specifically, who can take photos, how the animals can be photographed, and how the photos can be used. (One rule precludes showing humans in photos with the animals – apparently this extends to body parts such as a hand. Even with my limited experience, I can tell you that it’s not always possible to get a photo of a nervous dog without a human’s arm or elbow somewhere in the frame.)
Emily took some lovely photos of the dogs that put the official shelter photos to shame. It sounds like those photos helped some animals escape death row. Instead of seeing the potential here, the shelter fired her. (Another former volunteer has also expressed displeasure with the fact that the shelter wanted to tightly control any of the photographs he took instead of allowing him to post them on his Facebook page. Since when is wider exposure for an animal in need of a home a bad thing?)
Don’t get me wrong – I realize that not all shelters have the time or resources to devote to getting some truly fantastic photographs of adoptable animals. They may not have enough volunteers to do so – in fact, the article suggests that there are only a handful of volunteers to take photos for the entire city shelter system involved here. In addition, I’m sure there are sometimes valid legal reasons that an organization like this one would want to control the use of photos or set forth standards.
However, why not try to find a middle ground? Perhaps the shelter could have taken this opportunity to revisit its policies and come up with a plan for getting photos of the animals that would both be acceptable to the shelter and would increase the animals’ chances of adoption. (Similarly, in the case of the other volunteer I mentioned above, perhaps agreeing to a reasonable way that the photos could be circulated while noting that he did not officially represent the shelter would have been an option.)
This story isn’t about a lack of resources – you have an employee who is willing and able to help take better photos of the animals. Perhaps she violated the policy, but wouldn’t a reprimand would have made more sense than firing her?
You can read the full New York Times article here.
UPDATE 11/15/11: There appears to be an online petition circulating to get Emily her job back. If you’d like to learn more, click here.
Wow. I understand that there are rules for a reason, but in this case I think an exception could of been made. It seems as through the shelter volunteer was trying to do a good deed and then bam! she gets fired for it. This is what is wrong with society today.
It even looks like she took the time to try and crop out the human parts in the one picture, I give her an A for effort.
What's the point of having a shelter at all if you're not going to take every oppoutunity to find the dogs at the facility forever homes?
Seems kinda backwards to me.
PS- mom said if she didn't have me monopolizing all her time she would take any of those NYCACC pups home with her…and that Jeff guy too. ;X
Yeh, I get that there must be rules in a bureaucracy, but when the rules conflict with the main purpose of a shelter, ie to shelter and find new homes, the person who fired her should seek a new job where lives are not at stake.
Woof! Woof! We are a bit confused on WHY???? Ridiculous! Other shelter group will glad to take on her expertise. Lots of Golden Woofs, Sugar
My first time commenting… and I'm going to be the voice of dissent. 🙁
I think as animal lovers, we're always going to want to do what's best for the animals. However, if this woman was a paid employee who clearly broke the organization's "no pictures" policy, I think they are within their rights to discipline an employee. Just keep in mind that we don't know the full story here… Yes, firing her was probably extreme, but again, we don't know all the details.
Also, I can't help but think WHY so many shelters and rescue organizations have these "no pictures" policies. I would imagine having bad experiences from when extreme animal rights organizations had run undercover filming operations, etc, that they are just overly cautious of bad publicity.
(Can you tell I used to work in Human Resources?) I hope no one sends the pitchforks after me! 🙁
Well, I guess it all depends on the animal that the pictures were taken of. If there are some really skinny, really hurt animals, maybe you wouldn't want pictures of them. But when I look for animals to put on my blog to help them find a home and I looks for good pictures. So this whole story is a little strange to me but I am sure there are reasons on either side.
jen – I agree. It seems like the firing was a bit extreme, at least base don the facts we have.
Gucci – Well, you'll have to keep your mom in line!
Jan – That's what I'm thinking. There should be some attempt to balance the need for rules with the desired result – finding homes for the animals.
Sugar – I would think so.
homewithcubbie – No pitchforks here! 🙂 I think it's more interesting to have a discussion of all sides of the issue here, and I think you make some good points.
I do agree that we don't know the full story and there could always be more to it. The organization does have the discretion to discipline its employee, and the shelter does have to make sure it's covered legally. (I've talked to other rescue groups who were somewhat cautious about getting into partnerships with bloggers and other volunteers because they've been burned in various ways.)
I just think that the policy itself could use some work – perhaps there's a way to balance the legal and other concerns with a policy that would be more beneficial to the animals?
Marg – I agree. The shelter in this case doesn't seem to realize the difference a good picture can make. Although we may never know all of the facts, I would like to think there's some way to balance both sets of concerns.
Organizations develop personalities after time. The kind of work and the stresses of challenges create an organizational culture that can be very powerful.
I wonder if the stress of working in an organization where people who are probably animal lovers face human cruelty and killing dogs for lack of space and other reasons every day creates an organizational culture where flexibility and creativity become a threat. (I wrote a long sentence because I ran out of time to write a short one–sorry.)
I could see the possibility of facing horror every day making you reluctant to see hope in any situation.
I think working for an organization that kills animals every day and deals with animal cruelty cases could be soul deadening.
It's way we have to find homes for every animal because high-kill shelters are bad for all kinds of animals–even the human ones.
Pamela – I think you make a really good point. I have a great deal of respect for people who work in shelters like this one. I don't think that I would last a day – it has to be hard to see any hope when you're constantly faced with such tragedy. And your last sentence is so on point – it's a sad system, and it's not good for anyone involved. Rather than finger pointing, it would be nice to see a dialogue come out of this that could benefit all concerned. A girl can dream… 🙂
boooo!
our shelter started taking amazing photos and labeling them cute – and their adoptions are up!
I don't understand why many shelters do such a bad job of photographing their animals – I have seen many great photos of shelter dogs that have helped get them adopted. I have volunteered to photograph animals at several shelters, but have never been taken up on the offer – it makes me sad – I want to contribute in some way and I feel that this is the way that I could help the most! I have also thought about offering to teach them some basic photography skills – I'll have to give that a shot sometime soon.
I feel bad for the girl that lost her job, regardless of what all of the details were, she was just trying to help the animals 🙁
I always find it sad when organizations let personality conflicts get in the way of their desired goal. It seems to me that the people running this group are a bit inflexible, and it also sounds like the young woman who lost her job was also pushing the envelope a bit. If they had certain policies, and she was a paid employee, then she did have an obligation to follow their rules. It's too bad that they seem more concerned with being in control and being "right" than they do about placing animals.
Too stupid… Ridiculous.
Elyse and Riley
That's awful. I understand some regulations may be violated, but everyone knows quality pictures increase adoptions, so rather than giving her the boot, perhaps a second look at some of their policies is actually in order. Then again, something tells me we don't have the full picture – she talks about tension with her bosses, and my guess the photo thing is just an excuse or tip of the iceberg.
Having volunteered at a shelter for many, many years I can honestly say that we never had a rule like this. IN fact, the shelter was always grateful when someone offered to take photos. Give that NY ACC has had many issues in the past that have raised many an animal advocates' ire, chances are it's pure stupidity and the need to control the message.
The woman running the shelter has been under fire for months now. God forbid she save an animal. Absolutely disgusting on so many levels.
I think that "backalleysoapbox" makes a good point about not having the full story. This former employee also runs her own small rescue, so maybe there were tensions about how she thought things should run and how they do run at the ACC. I do agree that great pictures help adopt animals, but you gotta' follow the rules.
Oh my, that's horrendous. I've always thought that the photo quality was key to getting a dog a second chance. I agree – someone should have noticed the good in what the woman was doing and promoted her!
We agree with everyone who thinks this is ridiculous! We hope they get a new director who actually welcomes new ideas that will HELP GET ANIMALS ADOPTED! This is one reason why our Mom doesn't work in offices anymore – she doesn't always play well with others – or by the rules 🙂 Plus, we hope Emily goes on to save more animals in her own way! Makes us wonder what is really going on at that shelter, too. Thanks for post this!
The Road Dogs
The Road Dogs
um, "posting" not "post" *yawn*
What a sad story. I can't imagine why this would be a problem – except that I can't imagine why the employee wouldn't have gone to the manager, explained her plan and gotten permission FIRST. If she got the OK to take the pictures and followed the other rules (like no people? Ridiculous!) then would she have been allowed to go ahead? The policy clearly needs some work. It's a sad story all around and the only ones who really lose are the animals.
The word "bureaucracy" has a place here…
homewithcubbie and backalleysoapbox are right to point out that this may have been an excuse the organization was looking for. But they sure gave her a great PR opportunity to make them look dumb.
jen – That's awesome! I hope that success stories like that get out and inspire other shelters.
Jules – I offered at a lot too, and only one took me up on the offer. I think I'm going to do some follow up posts on how to approach shelters and some of the challenges. I definitely plan to post more on this topic.
houndstooth – True. There were probably issues on both sides, but it just seems like shame that this is the result.
backalleysoapbox – You're probably right and there was more to it in this particular case. It does sound like their policies could use some work though.
Mel – Yeah, it seems like this particular shelter system has a host of other issues, at least from some of the articles I've seen.
Karen – Very true. When you're an employee, you're bound by the rules. I do think their rules could use some revision, however.
KB – I think this story makes me realize how important it is to spread the word about the value of a good photo and keep it on people's radar.
Road Dogs – Agreed. I'll be interested to see what Emily does next.
Koly – It's not clear to me from the story how much she consulted with her employer. I would definitely be interested to find out more.
Life Student – Excellent point. They gave her a golden PR opportunity, no matter what else was going on behind the scenes.
My human wuz banned from takin photos from r local animal rescue league cause they dun't want bad press. sorry, but if u have nothing to hide why not let people share their wonderful photos of these wonderful animals and get them homes!???!
An employee took photograph of the shelter animals in the hopes of placing these photos somewhere, on a blog on on Facebook perhaps, to try to increase adoptions. However, that was not her assigned responsibility at the shelter. Furthermore, other people — volunteers — already had accepted that task. For a staff person to take over the role that volunteers had would lead to great dissension. It struck me that the individual was naive in comprehending some policies that have been established for very good reasons. She cannot leapfrog over other people, nor hurt feelings willy nilly in the organization, or nothing will get accomplished. It takes a long while to build a volunteer staff. I do not question the young woman's motives at all, just the behaviors.
What a sad situation. It seems to me hurt human feelings should take a backseat to saving animals' lives.
Boris – I'm sorry to hear that!
Barbara – Valid points about the personnel aspects. I'm sure there's more to this whole story than meets the eye.
Amy – I tend to agree.
Update to all – apparently there's an online petition out there to get Emily her job back. Just an FYI. http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/article/1020511–online-petition-seeks-to-get-shelter-employee-job-back
Awesome pictures! Unbelievable, horrible story. 🙁