Comments taken from the NBC Blog Website about Small Paws Rescue's appearance on NBC NIghtly News with Brian Williams on Feb 9, 2006

Is E-mail About to Get Costly?

See the News Story Video!

COMMENTS

The monies sent to fill the coffers of AOL and YAHOO would literally be taking food from the mouths of poor puppies and their parents and take life saving surgeries from these sick rescue dogs such as seen from Small Paws Rescue. These sick puppy mill dogs and left for dead shelter dogs would not be healed to give help and nurture to people would need those animals for their own well being. Other non-profits that benefit the two legged needy also would lose out if even one dime was taken away. Please do not take monies from non-profits when their money could be better used than going to these large organizations.


Judy Neese, Enid, Okla. (Sent Feb 10, 2006 9:51:53 AM)


AS A YAHOO USER & SMALL PAWS RESCUE MEMBER (I HAVE A SPR BICHON), I AM OUTRAGED THAT YAHOO & AOL WANT TO CHARGE. SHAME ON THEM. SPR DOES SO MUCH GOOD, IT WOULD BE AWFUL TO CHARGE THEM FOR WHAT I & OTHERS HAVE SIGNED UP TO RECEIVE. LINDA WOOD


LINDA WOOD, FORT WORTH, TX (Sent Feb 10, 2006 9:46:28 AM)


Thank You so much for the story you did on AOl and Yahoo potentially charging to send emails. I belong to Small Paws Rescue and its very important that these two providers understand what will happen to non-profit organizations if they have to start paying for each email they send. Small Paws Rescue operates 24/7, rescuing bichon frise's from puppy mills, taking owner turn-in's, and rescuing them from kill shelters. Although it is a nationwide organization, many members are also outside the US. Small Paws Rescue believes in being the voice for those that have none. Many people do not know what a puppy mill is, how the dogs are treated in one. Thank you for making others aware of Small Paws Rescue by including them in your broadcast about the charge to emails.

May I suggest that NBC do a whole story on Small Paws Rescue on who they are and what they do to help bichons in need.


Kari Celaya, Antelope, CA (Sent Feb 10, 2006 9:35:40 AM)


AOL AND YAHOO is who I heard were going to do it

I would change to something else

I am on a large mailing list for a non-profit and I wouldn't want them charged


Kay Lauro (Sent Feb 10, 2006 9:09:52 AM)


This is outrageous! Charging for emails. This is just anohter way for these companies to make money. Don't you think that the spamers know how to get around the system? They are not just individuals who know a little about computers! Small Paws Rescue is an organization that tries to save the lives of bichons and works very hard at doing it. All of the volunteers, foster parents and those that adopt have brought so much joy to those dogs that need help. Maybe one cent is not much to some but to an organization that relies on donations it is a huge amount of money to spend for their newsletters to go out around the world, not just the US. With all of the technology don't you think there are other ways of doing this? Don't punish those that try to help our fluffers have a better life punish those that take advantage of the system!!


Lynn Palmer, Alexandria, VA (Sent Feb 10, 2006 9:07:34 AM)


Let me get this straight. AOL wants to charge Small Paws Rescue between $16,500 - $65,000 per year to send out their daily updates on how we all can, and DO, help dogs get out of filthy wire cages and away from heartless, greedy humans who only want to relentlessly breed the sick dogs until the dogs die. It does NOT cost AOL $16,500 - $65,000 for Small Paws to use their e-mail service. Small Paws is ALREADY paying for that service. This is more greed, which is what we Americans are famous for. Nice job, AOL. I strongly suggest that non-profits be not only exempt from this charge, but that the providers use the money they extort from businesses (not all are worthless spammers!) toward giving non-profits free subscriptions!!


Belinda Matson (Sent Feb 10, 2006 8:51:58 AM)


Before building their bank accounts one penny at a time, Yahoo and AOL need to determine that the email is SPAM before charging the sender. Rescue organizations such as Small Paws only send mail to those people that request it, therefore, it isn't SPAM... it is a mass mailed newsletter. I look forward to the mail from Small Paws. There are alerts for missing Bichons, alerts for Bichons abandoned in shelters that need to be rescued, alerts for puppy mill activities... in exigent circumstances Small Paws will put out alerts for other breeds. No discrimination. Bottom line - the emails from Small Paws are wanted. They are necessary for Small Paws to do the nationwide good works that they do. I have never known of a rescue organization that does so much (and at times on so little). To charge even a 1/4 of a cent per email takes money away from the rescue funding efforts that are desperately needed.


Dianne HIll, Dunnellon, FL (Sent Feb 10, 2006 8:19:21 AM)


There are many small nonprofits like Small Paws Rescue - a Bichon Frise rescue organization - that would not function well with this extra-large expense. Why can't they just charge the for-profit companies for this?


Dorilee, Kalamazoo, MI (Sent Feb 10, 2006 8:02:33 AM)


It's not right for AOL and Yahoo to try and punish not for profit organizations such as Small Paws Rescue (SPR). SPR does not advertise. It is an "opt in" email list. The newsletter only goes to those who have signed up to receive it. SPR uses it's money to rescue and medically treat Bichons and find good adoptive homes for them. No online legitimate not for profit group should have to pay for mass mailing. Maybe you could do a more expanded piece on SPR so people realize just how serious this is to all not for profit groups.


Patti Newlin, Decatur, IL (Sent Feb 10, 2006 7:47:25 AM)


Everyone is in support of cutting down on spam, but not only spammers and big business send bulk mailings. I belong to "Small Paws" rescue and see how hard the founders of our organization and the members work to get help to these animals in need. E-mail is the fastest and most effective way to accomplish this. If a portion of our constant and continual fund raising has to be used to pay for mailings, how many Bichon lives will it cost? Not for profit organizations must be exempt from this action.


Lisa, Tecumseh MI (Sent Feb 10, 2006 7:19:20 AM)


I belong to the SmallPaws newsletter because I CHOSE to sign up for it! They should not be charging Small Paws to keep us informed about the rescues of the helpless little Bichons! Small Paws and other rescue sites are not the same thing as Spam advertising for cheap medicine and fake lottery winnings. Rescue sites and other "opt-in" e-mailings should not be included with this edict against the junk mailings. The difference is VERY clear between rescuing puppies and those silly "viagra" e-mails!


Karen O'Donnell (Sent Feb 10, 2006 7:14:23 AM)


It is because of the e-mails we receive from Small Paws Rescue, that we are able to determine when there is an emergency to help rescue dogs from a variety of situations. Many times donations are made for specific situations. If we did not receive these e-mails, there certainly would be fewe donations. This is a non for profit organization that communicates daily with its members. Having received a senior dog from this organization, who provided me with a few years of companionshi, I feel that it would be extremely unfair to charg for e-mails.


Eleanor Norton (Sent Feb 10, 2006 7:07:05 AM)


THere are valid uses of bulk mailings for non-profit organizations that want to keep their volunteers up to date on the needs and happenings of the organization. Small Paws Rescue is only one of many organizations like this. We get several emails a week and during crisis periods for dogs in surgery, lost dogs or fundraising for large group rescues of dogs this is often several times a day. SPR has over 1000 volunteers around the world. THat would be over $250 per email sending (and remember that we may get multiple essential emails per day) that would not be going to the dogs. That could pay for total vetting of a rescue dog... It could easily mean the difference in a dog being euthanized in a kill shelter or living, simply because we were $250 short that day and not able to "spring" the animal from it's death row jail cell. FOr big business, this may mean cheap advertising. For our dogs, it could mean life or death. See www.smallpawsrescue.org for more information.


Crystal Renfro, Lawrenceville, GA (Sent Feb 10, 2006 7:01:47 AM)


As a member of SmallPawsRescue and other not-for-profit animal 'rescue' groups the concept of our having to pay to keep our members up to date on our activities will, in effect, put many groups 'out' of business. We work on an 'emergency' basis, frequently having to move literally within hours, not days to provide health care or other assistance to animals in need. If we had to pay even 1/4 cent per mailing our funding would be seriously impacted.
SmallPaws is one of the largest 501c3 world-wide animal rescue groups, and I can only imagine what this proposal of fees would do to the smaller groups.
What started out as 'free' should remain free, or there will be no 'freedoms' left. We have lost too much already.


Kathryn C. Smith, New Bern, NC (Sent Feb 10, 2006 6:25:30 AM)


It would be a terrible thing if not for profit organizations had a hard time raising funds because they had to pay for each email they sent out. Small Paws Rescue is one of those organizations. They only send emails to the people who request to be on their mailing list. These people who get the newsletters on an almost daily basis and sometimes several times a day are also the way that this organization gets its funding. If it has to use the funds to send emails, it will have less money to do what it was created for. This wonderful organization raises funds to rescue bichon frise dogs from puppy mills, kill shelters, and owner turn in's. They vet these dogs, (spay, neuter, and whatever else it takes to get them healthy enough to adopt out), volunteers foster these dogs until they can be adopted, and they get them adopted to good, loving homes. They put in many hours to do all of this. The bills are tremendous. This is not something they can afford. They need to get the emails out to raise the funds needed to do all this good work. Nobody gets these newsletters that does not want them. This is not spam but is considered a mass mailing. If anyone saw the conditions these dogs have to live in, they would know that if Small Paws Rescue couldn't get some of these dogs out of there due to lack of funds or the ability to raise funds, it would be a real tragedy. All you have to do is go to their website at smallpawsrescue.org and see for yourself the kind of good work these people do.


Lisa Merriman, Vandalia, IL (Sent Feb 10, 2006 5:16:24 AM)


As a "Small Paws Rescue" Foster Volunteer I need my "Small Paws Newsletters" to get to my email so I can be informed of any emergencies that I can assist in. "Small Paws" families are in the thousands and "Small Paws" and other volunteer organizations would lose vital money normally used to rescue these precious dogs. Not charging money for large email groups in the "not for profit" catagory is a matter of life or death. And thousands of precious Bichons have been rescued through these newsletters. There's got to be a better way to prevent spam.


Susie Tronti (Sent Feb 10, 2006 2:55:54 AM)


Robin Pressnall, founder of Small Paws Rescue, in Tulsa, OK, made a great point of how their non-profit rescue organization could be devastated if they had to pay for email messages. This is a wonderful organization, dedicated to rescuing dogs from terrible circumstances, having the rescues treated by veterinarians, and adopting them out into loving homes. To even consider charging them is like charging someone to pray in their own church. It would be a news worthy story to explore Small Paws in depth and let people know that there are some good folks left in this cruel world.


Jim Burris, Seguin, TX (Sent Feb 10, 2006 1:12:40 AM)


Well I guess the real message was lost on some of you. The ones who will be hurt by this "nominal charge" are the ones who can least afford it. The charities and resque groups like Small Paws. Small Paws does wonderful work but does it all on a shoestring hand-to-mouth budget that many other groups or companies would so envy. AOL and Yahoo have built this great list of users on the premise of free service over the internet and many not-for-profits use it as the best way to communicate with thier customers and associates; tacking a charge on this service is unneccesary and too typical of modern sarbanes-oxley driven companies. GET THE MONEY!!! ANYWAY YOU CAN!!! whoever ran this one up the pole needs to go home and think about it...


Steve Williams (Sent Feb 10, 2006 12:35:46 AM)


Thanks for including the Small Paws Rescue in this story! We receve all of our info via mass emailings on a voluntary list and many of us are AOL and Yahoo! users. I'm all for making spam less available, but don't say that all bulk emailings are spam. They're not.


Erin J, Pullman, WA (Sent Feb 10, 2006 12:01:14 AM)


This whole idea has not been thought through carefully. Okay--we want to prevent spam, etc. But many non-profits could not operate if they had to pay postage (or e-mail charges) for their newsletters or memos that need to be sent. It would increase operating costs to a prohibitive amount. Operating costs are the hardest thing for a non-profit to raise funds for. Many corporations or people will give money to non-profit special events or funds, but not for operating costs--postage and newsletters being two of the greatest. Non-profits such as Small Paws need to get to their members on an hourly, sometimes daily, and certainly monthly basis. Why penalize them and perhaps put them out of business just so the large for profits can get a few more dollars--what does this world need? More money for business or more good deeds?


Carol Bowen (Sent Feb 9, 2006 11:49:46 PM)


I watched the story tonight concerning AOL and Yahoo charging for mass e-mailings. Perhaps this is OK for businesses, but not for non-profit organizations such as Small Paws Rescue. This Bichon Frise rescue group, based in Tulsa, OK, is not in the business of making a profit - it's goal is to save lives. I feel that all non-profit organizations should be exempt from paying a fee to send newsletters and correspondence to their e-mailing lists. Thank you.


Pat Morgan, Tulsa, OK (Sent Feb 9, 2006 11:43:04 PM)


maybe if everyone would go back to the snail mail of sending letters and ect these two companies would be forced to go bankrupt which I am sure that they do not want to do... but if they deciede to charge I will find another company to use, I have already been looking... so yahoo and AOL.. you are already losing customers and do not even know it yet... you will once you start to charge... Everyone will be changing companies...


darlene gaugh cameron missouri (Sent Feb 9, 2006 11:19:46 PM)


Big businesses and spammers are not the only ones whom use mass mailings. I don't see how this will deter the spammers as they seem to have found a way around every other method of control so far. AOL and Yahoo! are appealing to the people's aggravation with unwanted mail to promote another way for them to get money. Maybe someone can explain how this would stop spammers? Non-profit groups, of which I am a volunteer (for Small Paws(R) Rescue) will have to spend needed money for services on email mailing which help to inform members and raise money to save lives- both people and other animals. Will this fee happen? Probably, but I don't think it is to help people.


Loraine, Florida (Sent Feb 9, 2006 11:07:45 PM)


I don't see that AOL and YAHOO's charging for mass mailings will really put a stop to much of anything. Those who are out there to cheat people out of their money by posing as a charitable organization or advertising the latest male enhansement product will always find a way to get their messages out to the public. Additionally,it is only reasonable to believe that once AOL and YAHOO begin these fees all the other servers will follow. This is just another way for these mega companies to make even more billions off the public. I would be more worried that legitimate charitable organizations, like Small Paws Rescue that appeared on this news segment, who rely solely on donations to survive and continue their work, would be greatly hurt by these added new fees.


Arleen (Sent Feb 9, 2006 10:54:57 PM)


I don't have a problem with the email for the spammers that send out the millions of emails each day that we are all inundated with, but non-profit people like Small Paws should be exempt. Having been a part of Small Paws for about 2 years and it is truly one large family. We all care deeply about the cause of rescuing these wonderful fluffs from the puppy mills. There are also many owner turn ins that would probably be euthanized if it were not for Small Paws. NBC should do a special on all the things that Small Paws has done and continues to do!!!! Here is someone and something that has really made a difference in hundreds of dogs and their owners lives!!


Barb Rowan (Sent Feb 9, 2006 10:48:39 PM)


I completely agree that not-for-profit organizations such as Small Paws Rescue should be excluded from this per email charge. I am a volunteer with Small Paws and rely on the many email newsletters to stay informed of our rescue attempts and needs. Why not do a story on Small Paws to get our message out there to more people so that more Bichons could be helped?


Melissa Staggers, Mandeville, LA (Sent Feb 9, 2006 10:42:12 PM)


Tonight's show about pending email charges by AOL and Yahoo doesn't exempt non-profit organizations such as Small Paws Rescue. As a volunteer with his wonderful organization, I know that all our mailings are to friends of Small Paws and their rescue work. No one gets an email that hasn't requested it. We couldn't possibly pay to send out our newsletters. Small Paws Rescue is in the business of saving lives of bichons, not spamming people. We have saved thousands of bichons living in terrible conditions in puppy mills and as strays. We need to use our donations wisely, not enrich AOL or Yahoo needlessly.


Lee Farrow, Thornton, Colorado (Sent Feb 9, 2006 10:38:22 PM)


Organizations like "Small Paws" need the convenience and price (ie, FREE) of email. Small Paws scraps up pennies (the same pennies email would charge) to rescue and rehabilitate dogs from abusive conditions. Don't AOL and YAHOO have enough money??


Amelia, Lexington, KY (Sent Feb 9, 2006 10:35:13 PM)


There are instances when mass mailings save lives, Literally. I recently adopted a Bichon Frise from the Small Paws Rescue sightl. The only way it is possible to reach out to, stay in touch with, request prayers and update members is through mass mailings. It is as desired and can be cancelled. Nonprofits such as this would not be able to achieve their great success in saving lives without it. What individually might appear as a minute amount is money being taken from the enormous cost for rescueing, rehabilitating and bringing each dog through traumatic, unhealthy and deadly living situations with costly medical surgeries and treatments. Please don't allow any pennies be redirected toward the cost of the emails so important to the saving of as many dogs as possible.
The outreach through emails is necessary for the animals and recipients who choose to be forwared the vital information about this outstanding rescue group;Small Paws Rescue. thank you


kathy mayo, Boxborough, MA (Sent Feb 9, 2006 10:05:04 PM)


Further research needs to go into this idea before it comes to fruition. Non-profits would suffer tremendously. Non-profits like Small Paws Rescue (featured on your program this evening), would find it difficult to bear that expense. They have enough trouble raising funds for the life & death necessities of running every day business. Saving the lives of sick and dying dogs caused by puppy mills is hard work. It is diligent work. It is expensive to fight these puppy mills. Let's tax these puppy mills that are creating these horrendous problems that Small Paws is fighting. It is absolutely necessary that these non profit organizations that deal in the life and death of a sick dog (caused by puppy mills) get all the breaks they can. Added expenses like this are absurd and need to be re-evaluated.


Vaunda Sather, Las Vegas, Nevada (Sent Feb 9, 2006 10:04:52 PM)


I, too, am a volunteer with Small Paws Rescue and was quite unnerved to learn that two of the biggest Internet providers may charge a fee for sending e-mails. Enough is enough! This fee may seem trivial to some, but to non-profit organizations, especially one like Small Paws Rescue that relies so much on its membership, it could severely hinder our efforts. Small Paws Rescue volunteers are scattered across the United States and we are connected to one another via the Internet. We are dedicated to saving the lives of animals who have been gravely mistreated in puppy mills or who are no longer wanted by their owners. We rescue them and we find them good, loving homes. Perhaps our story needs to be told in greater detail, to illustrate the devastation this fee would have on our humanitarian efforts to save dogs. How very sad, indeed. And mark my words: if this fee goes into effect, more will surely follow.


Rosemary Bonacci, Whitesboro, NY (Sent Feb 9, 2006 10:02:48 PM)


Charging for emails would greatly impact many not for profits. Small Paws Rescue (SPR), a Tulsa-based National Rescue Group, is dedicated to saving the lives of unwanted, and/or unloved Bichons, nationwide.
Frequent emails keep their growing number of supporters and volunteers abreast of the round the clock life-saving efforts. As a member of this volunteer organization, I know that SPR is always in need of financial assistance to help us continue this important work. There is no extra money. Who would want to be put in the position of having to make a choice of whether to use a portion of the donations received to pay for per email charges or to save a life?





Pam Lagano, Clearwater, Floria (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:53:49 PM)


It would be sad if not for profit organizations such as Small Paws Rescue, who are trying to do a service were penalized by a per email charge. I know this organization and the emails they send out are for medical emergencies, requests for help to transport very medically fragile animals, requests for funding necessary medical procedures, and to ask people to help locate animals who have been lost or stolen. They were also instrumental in finding shelter for animals that had been displaced by a fire that distroyed an animal shelter. If not for the emails they sent out no one would have known when help was needed. I believe not for profit organizations should be exempt from any type of fee for mass emails.


Susan Cronin (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:52:04 PM)


Charging for sending emails has an effect on legitimate businesses that have few other means of contact. I am a Small Paws Rescue volunteer, and I know that this change would force them to use funds that would be better spent rescuing dogs in need.


Angela Mehaffey (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:42:02 PM)


I just watched the NBC spot about charging for e-mail in order to reduce the amount of spam we all receive. Unsolicited spam is one thing; the use of the internet for not-for-profit organizations, such as the very worthy Small Paws Rescue, Inc., is quite another. We sign up for the newsletters sent out on a daily (or more frequent) basis, and a charge of even $.025 - $.01 per piece would be the death knell for this organization that is trying to prevent death to animals on a 24/7 basis. Please get the word out that Small Paws Rescue, Inc. is providing a centralized service to those of us who really care about these animals and the way they are not only conceived but also mistreated before getting out of the puppy-mill cycle.


Debi Hart (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:35:49 PM)


Small Paws is the perfect example of a non-profit organization which can not take the hit of this so called minor but necessary charge for E-Mail. Who are the dudes in the white towers at AOL & YAHOO trying to kid. Bottom line, MEANS EVERYTHING TO YOU its obvious. Have the guts to look at the pictures of dogs in puppy mills posted on the Small Paws Web Site Look at the case historys of dogs saved from these horrible conditions and then look me in the eye and tell me again that you really need those extra dollars from groups such as these.


David Dorsey (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:24:54 PM)


I belong to Small Paws Rescue and I think this is ridiculous. We are a RESCUE. We are not a million dollar corporation. Our money goes to saving and healing these dogs. We have medical emergencies practically every day, and for this we depend on our members for donations to help. Where are we going to get the money to pay for the emails??? I guess the big money-making corporations think it is better to fill their pockets than to save the life of a abused, starved, injured helpless little dog.


Virginia Larson (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:21:03 PM)


I belong to Small Paws Rescue, a non-profit organization that is involved in rescuing bichons from puppy millers that are extremely abusive (but that is a whole other story) and from kill shelters and people that must give their pets up for one reason or another. The success of the organization is heavily reliant on expedient e-mail communication. Many animals have been not only saved, but placed in loving homes as the result of the hard work put forth by Small Paws volunteers and members. It is a tireless effort, often requiring round-the-clock and mobile communication. Placing a charge on e-mail communication would be financially devastating for this organization and would result in the loss of dogs' lives. Although I am aware that not everyone can do non-profit work, must greed impact on those whose focus is completely selfless?


Lauren Johnson-Lavender, Mashpee, MA (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:20:50 PM)


I was delighted to see Small Paws Rescue mentioned in your news piece regarding providers charging for bulk e-mails. While I can see the benefit of "paying" for certified mailings for some businesses, non-profits like Small Paws would suffer an enormous financial crisis from even a small fee. Hopefully, non-profits will be considered and exempted from such charges. I'm sure there will be some interest from people about Small Paws after the news is seen. Could you possibly have a followup story on the organization and its goals of rescuing abused and neglected dogs as well as educating the public about the horrors of puppy mills? It is such important information.


Joan Sterling, Burlington KY (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:20:29 PM)


I am also a member of Small Paws Rescue (www.smallpawsrescue.org). We are the largest Bichon Frise rescue organization in the United States (and most likely, in the whole world). The last I knew, our newsletter is emailed to at least 7000 people in the United States and around the world. We have been recognized by the IRS as a legitimate charitable organization. Like all charitable organizations, we operate on limited funds and endless prayers. The thought of having to pay to send out email is daunting and could very likely hamper our efforts at saving lives. I think AOL and Yahoo need to re-think their concept of charging a fee (any fee) to send email. The proposed policy does not differentiate between nonprofit organizations and retail merchants.


K Sciullo, Waterford CT (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:16:42 PM)


Email for groups such as Small Paws should be free. They are nonprofit and do great work saving Bichon Frise's from puppy mills and putting them together with screened owners for them to be in forever homes.Do not charge for email! Small Paws has to beg for every penny they make in order to do their good work.Charging for email would mean less money for vetting, travel for the fluffs, and even their purchase from puppy mills.


P Felzien Highlands Ranch, CO (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:16:20 PM)


I hate spammers and that's why I use spam blocking tools for those emails I don't want to receive. However, I love Small Paws Rescue, my Bichons (one is a Small Paws former rescue mill dog), and laud SPR's mission to save these precious white fluffy dogs from puppy mills and kill shelters. If AOL starts charging Small Paws Rescue and other not-for-profit organizations, less money will be available to accomplish the goals of these organizations. This is just another attempt by a major company to earn extra bucks. No, to this initiative. Yes, to Small Paws and other good organizations. Brian Williams, why not do a week long expose on Puppy Mill horrors? Bet, Robin Presnell would be a fount of info on these living hells called Puppy Mills.


Liz Teague, Braselton, Georgia (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:15:57 PM)


If a nonprofit has the funds to pay salaries to the President of that organization, the
executive assistant, a lawyer, and an accountant, then
they must be treated like any other business and pay to have their mass mailings delivered. It's a good thing, mail that is suppose to be sent, gets delivered. I heard on NBC that the Red Cross is all for it. Some nonprofits need to look at their overhead!


Anne, Houston, Texas (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:13:21 PM)


Those of us who work in dog rescue need more of a voice..not an attempt to silence us by removing our main avenue of communication. Is the internet now going to become the domain of the very wealthy as are so many other things in this country. Those of us who dedicate our lives to saving those creatures abused by man do not need extra hurdles to jump. Rather we need the media's investigatory power to shine a spotlight on widespread abuse of dogs in puppy mills.



Susan Harbur (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:12:39 PM)


E-mail with a price tag would severely hamper, if not prevent, the good work of organizations like SMALL PAWS RESCUE (seen on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Thurs., Feb. 9) from doing the splendid Bichon rescue work they do, not only in the US, but all over the world. Small Paws is a non-profit organization of wonderful human beings who volunteer and who depend on director and president Robin Presnell's daily newsletter for location information and coordination of rescue efforts. Let this wonderful work continue!


Suzanne Hudson, Indiana, PA (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:12:13 PM)


If profitable businesses favor the idea of charging per email, then go ahead, by all means, provide them
with the opportunity. But as stated in a previous comment, this charge will be devastating to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit organizations
operate solely on donations and to impose any fee
will interfere with their mission. I have been active with Small Paws Rescue (Robin Pressnell was explaining her rescue on TV tonight) and know that they operate 24/7; they communicate with their members as frequently as they need to because of the nature of their work -- to save lives. For instance, SPR emails to raise funds for critical situations; they email to round up members for emergencies all over the country; they email for a stop-drop-and prayer request for Bichon's in trouble; it is vital that they reach their membership when needed. I personally don't like this idea at all, but by all
means, don't burden the good work of non-profits
with this per email charge.


Sandra Harris, Riva, MD (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:12:13 PM)

Like most people, I do not like spam anymore than I like junk mail in my mailbox. I do, however, think that non-profits need to be exempt from fees for e-mails. Small Paw rescue is one such organization. The money that is raised goes to pay for emergency medical care & rescue for animals. If each critical e-mail that was sent cost even one cent, we would soon be out of business. AOL generates enough profits and could certainly come up with a better solution for filtering spam than this one.


Susan Joyce, Roopville, GA (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:05:13 PM)


I am a volunteer with Small Paws Rescue who had a small spot on the nightly news tonight about the emails and certain companies wanting to charge for emails. We do all our adoptions by email. I am an adoption counseler and we correspond back and forth with the home office in OK several times a day to give reports from possible adoptive parents and their vets and references. Foster parents are e-mailed to call the prospective parents so they can ask any questions they might have about the dog they want to adopt. I think you can understand the volume of legitimate emails we have per day alone. We are totally non-profit and I believe these charges are unfair to an organization such as ours. Also, please read the post by Susan Koehrn another member of Small Paws Rescue.


Kathy Ives, Grove CIty Ohio (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:04:00 PM)


I hope these folks consider the effect on non-profits before making this an across the board fee. Organizations such as Small Paws, of which I am a proud member, would be devastated. Even if we could afford the fees, it would be that much less money we had to spend on the animals we save. And save they do. Our own dog would be dead if not for Small Paws. She was retrieved at the age of ten weeks from a commercial dog breeder's auction--yes there are such things, look it up--where she was to be sold by one breeder to another breeder. She had a grade six heart murmur-the worst on a scale of one to six. Small Paws bought her, paid over $2000 to have her heart fixed and we adopted her for a nominal fee. If we had to spend that money on these proposed fees, there might not have been the funds available to save her. I'm all for reducing Spam, but please exempt worthy operations such as Small Paws Rescue.


Mary Campbell (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:03:26 PM)


Considering the cost of AOL, YAHOO, etc., I would think that they could, at least, provide free email. As a nation, we need to begin fighting the rising costs that we are forced to pay, including gas and fuel...and now we are facing payment of emails on top of cost of service....UNFAIR! UNFAIR! This would cost various organizations, especially non-profits to be paying thousands of dollars to reach their participants, forcing the loss of revenue to help the causes of the less ofrtunate. SMALL PAWS RESCUE helps dogs in every state and is run totally with contributions from the emails subscribers--how are funds to be raised and paid out to save fluffs from the horrors of the puppy mills, unfortunate fluffs who are forced from their homes because of illness or old age or death of the caregivers and fluffs in pain and suffering at shelters and such, if this is allowed to happen. Allow good people to do good work and do not allow this cost to be envoked.


Carole Schlemmer, Dayton, Ohio (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:02:52 PM)


There are a lot of organizations that send "advertising" emails, including many in my line of work (Real Estate). We expect to pay for advertising. My colleagues may not like me saying so, but charging Real Estate Agents, and Kraft, and Hewlett Packard, and Palm, and (I'm trying to think of who else send me advertising emails) would be affordable and expected. I agree that non-profits such as Small Paws, Northwest Medical Teams, Red Cross, (perhaps those who have "opt-in" emailing lists) should be exempt.


Toni Hatch, Vancouver, Washington (Sent Feb 9, 2006 9:01:46 PM)


It is sad in this day and age of tech advancements that we have no yet created software designed to block out annoying and often malicious spam messages without comprimising legitimate addresses, but charging up to a penny to dot com companies, without regard to not for profit status, is foolish. With many smaller groups such as Small Paws Rescue (I found their site, http://www.smallpawsrescue.org/),it is obvious they are doing this for the love of their cause, and not as an advertising ploy. These groups would be unable to try to maintain their network of information without the speed and low cost of email. We either need to strengthen our laws and regulations against spammers, making it increasingly dangerous to fill our inboxes, or be very careful in these types of charge incentives, making sure the little guy does not get trampled in the process.


Shalene Shimer, Bellefontaine, Ohio (Sent Feb 9, 2006 8:56:35 PM)


I am a Small Paws Rescue member and volunteer. The newsletter from Small Paws is sent out one or even three times a day and is very important to us. We need to keep track of the rescue efforts and the money we donate. Since donations have been scares this past year, we need to keep every penny for vet bills and for rescuing little precious lives. Transporting these little angels to foster homes is a group effort and communication is a vital tool. Chargeing for non profit organizations emailings would be stealing from their little mouths.
Yvonne Ostby SPR Volunteer Addison , Illinois


Yvonne Ostby, Addison, IL (Sent Feb 9, 2006 8:54:47 PM)


Great story about AOL and Yahoo charging for e-mails. What next? I was pleased to see Robin Presnall and her beautiful rescued bichons. Non profit organizations like Small Paws would be hurt financially if they had to start paying for e-mails because Small Paws sends out e-mails at least once a day to all of us volunteers. They do a fantastic job of saving our precious bichon's from the horrors of puppy millers. Bichon's are very special little fluff dog's that win everyone's heart and yet those terrible puppy millers continue to exploit them for the all mighty dollar and Robin and all of us volunteers do our best to save each and every one them so we don't need the added expense of having to pay for e-mails. Just a suggestion, but you may want to consider doing a follow up story on the horrors of puppy mills and the wonderful volunteers that save their lives.


RoseMarie Laramee, Ludlow, MA (Sent Feb 9, 2006 8:45:38 PM)


I believe organizations like Small Paws Rescue should be except from charging for email. It's not used for advertising or sent to anyone on a purchased list. Individuals must sign up to receive these emails. It is not spam. We all share a passion for rescuing Bichon Frise from conditions most people cannot even imagine. This rescue would come to a screeching halt if forced to pay for these emails. It's the only way a group as large as ours can communicate quickly and efficiently.


Cynthia Slaybaugh (Sent Feb 9, 2006 8:41:16 PM)


I too am a volunteer with Small Paws Rescue and I think it would be awful if AOL and Yahoo charged per email. We are informed of any emergencies involving these precious bichons 24/7 via email and it goes out to thousands of people across the country, if they charged for them some of these emergencies could become fatalities. It would possibly be the end to most non-profit organizations including SPR. If nothing else non-profit organizations should be exempt.


Wendy Ball, Nortonville, KY (Sent Feb 9, 2006 8:37:50 PM)


Small Paws Rescue is doing a wonderful job and to charge for necessary emails among members would be a disservice to a great organization. All the money needs to be directed to helping animals and saving pets from horrors of puppymills.


Jane Weeks (Sent Feb 9, 2006 8:36:29 PM)


There are many charities out there which provide emails to those people who want them. Churches, Small Paws Rescue, and others. The people they send to have said -- sign me up, I want your emails. These groups do good works, they are non-profits which translates to operating on a shoestring. There's got to be a better way than to charge organizations for emails their recipients have asked for. These are not the emails causing the spam.


Barbara Snethen (Sent Feb 9, 2006 8:24:55 PM)


Animal rescue organizations (and other nonprofits) can't afford to pay when they send out a "newsletter" via email. It's an undue burden...surely there's another way to elimate junk mail!


Judy Byrd, Canton, OH (Sent Feb 9, 2006 8:12:30 PM)


PAYING FOR EMAIL... C'MON.. ABOSOLUTELY OUT OF THE QUESTION... JUST ANOTHER WAY FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A BUCK IF THEY DO NOT MAKE ENOUGH OVER-CHARGING US FOR THE INTERNET SERVICES... ITS TIME FOR US TO STAND UP AND PUT A STOP TO THIS...


YARD CLARKSTON MI (Sent Feb 9, 2006 7:38:15 PM)


Only free email, forever.


Jeff Koby (Sent Feb 9, 2006 6:57:35 PM)


The above comments tell me that the American public does not have a grasp on reality. Naturally, this ME generation only thinks in terms of for-profit businesses. What about not-for-profit organizations that rely solely on donations. Should they have to pay this ransom? I belong to "Small Paws Rescue". There are days, quite frequently, when we get 2 and 3 newsletters a day. The nature of our organization is such that we are rescuing animals and dealing with medical emergencies 24/7. The members want up to the minute information on the status and condition of these dogs. That's how we are.We are one big family. "Small Paws Rescue" would be put out of operation if there is a per email charge. Non Profit Organizations need to be exempt from this kind of action. 1/4 to 1 penny per email may sound trivial and may very well be "Cheap" advertising. But Organizations like "Small Paws Rescue" don't advertise. They save lives.


Susan Koehrn (Sent Feb 9, 2006 5:34:49 PM)


Here is an example of the media looking for a story. Charging normal users to send mail could never work and this is not what the providers are trying to do. This new move by some of the large providers is only targeted towards bulk mail providers. When a company wants to send out a newsletter to its member base it is next to impossible to get past the spam detection even if the user wants the email. So if a company wants to be guaranteed that their newsletter or order confirmation will not be flagged as spam, this is a perfect solution.

There is a better model, that can be found on www.senderbase.org, but this model doesn't bring the providers any revenue.

It is actually surprising that they haven't done this sooner. In my opinion it is a very good thing, now companies wanting to send their client base specials and updates now know the mail will reach the recipient.

From a business perspective, the cost is nothing, .25-1 cent per email, a cost that can not be matched by any other advertising medium.


David Borgesen (Sent Feb 9, 2006 3:12:48 PM)


From what I've read on this... It's only going to effect people who are sending massive amounts of e-mail to AOL and Yahoo... IOW, the spammers. Besides, unless Google, Microsoft, private ISPs, etc get on-board, there'd be no way to enforce the payment for e-mail.

-A


Adam, Rockford, IL (Sent Feb 9, 2006 1:03:12 PM)


I WOULD HOPE AND TRY TO GET THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO BAN TOGEATHER AND REFUSE TO USE EMAIL UNTIL IT WAS FREE AGAIN. IF WE CONTINUE TO TAKE PRICE INCREASES LAYING DOWN WE WILL CONTINUE TO GET RUN OVER.


KEVIN MITCHUM COLA SC (Sent Feb 9, 2006 10:12:39 AM)