Eileen, my point was not that self-reflection is unnecessary or undesired. My point was that many of these organizations self-reflect frequently. Very frequently. I've made the same point in three separate posts and in each one you come back to saying that you knew some rescuer would object. I did not object to self-reflection. Many rescue organizations agonize over exactly the issues that have been raised here--do you not believe that to be true because you haven't seen evidence of it on these boards?
I think you're mistaken that "in each one [I] come back to saying that [I] knew some rescuer would object." I don't recall saying anything like that until my last post, where I said I did not expect it to go over well. And it didn't go over well, with you and with some others. In your case, you repeatedly said many rescues do do that (and, as I recall, you were the only one who said that). I don't dispute you, and I've said so. What I'm saying is that I think more could benefit from doing it than apparently are doing it. I draw that conclusion partly from the attitudes I see expressed on the Boards, true, but also from the policies and experiences described by people I know and by other apparently credible people, some of whom I believe are telling the truth. (I don't give credence to every complaint that comes my way, believe me.) I've already conceded that you've had more access -- much more -- to the internal deliberations of rescues, but you've certainly not had access to them all. If none of the rescues reading my suggestion here could benefit from self-reflection or further self-reflection, then obviously it was a futile suggestion on my part. But I don't know that to be so.
I have seen several people, you included, suggest that there was no reason for self-reflection on the part of those saying rescue organizations are the source of their own problems. I suppose I could also say that i was afraid that wouldn't go over well.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean that I've previously said there's no reason for self-reflection on the part of those criticizing rescue, then I think you're mistaken. I have not said that. But no harm, no foul, because I have certainly thought that earlier statements like this:
<< But, people who have no experience of what they are talking about other than indirect hearsay, supposition and anecdote (positive and negative) should do some self-reflecting of their own. >>
<< Nobody expects the general adopting populace to be worried about how they are perceived by those of us who rescue. >>
are totally beside the point. They are like a dog trainer saying the dog is at fault if it isn't getting what the trainer is trying to get across. The rescue bears (and professes) a much greater responsibility to the dogs than the reactor does. That's just a fact. And therefore I would expect them to show a degree of concern that I wouldn't expect from someone not equally committed. (Unless you're directing "do some self-reflecting of their own" toward someone like me, who is concerned about public perception of rescue but with no first-hand bad rescue experiences, and using it to mean "Just shut up." If you are, I don't mind at all saying "Okay" and shutting up.)
People believe what they believe and have every right to. I still don't get what the optimal response to these comments should be, though, in the opinions of those professing these beliefs about rescue. Several people, me included, have agreed that there are problems, often egregious ones. Agreement doesn't seem sufficient, however, as anything else that comes along from someone involved in rescue (or in my case, simply supportive) seems to be labeled as defensive, unrealistic, unwilling to acknowledge the perception problem, mean, etc. etc.
Your idea of a sticky wasn't lame. Getting a group of people together to come up with best practice guides isn't lame either.
Well, if my ideas weren't lame, then why aren't they examples of what "the optimal response" (or at least a possibly useful response) on the part of rescues might be?
ETA: I guess I should address what you said about being "labeled as defensive, unrealistic, unwilling to acknowledge the perception problem, mean, etc. etc." If you interpreted anything I said as attributing those qualities to you, I apologize for whatever I said that could give that impression. It is the furthest thing from my thoughts about you or about the positions you've taken on this thread.