Friday, May 18, 2012

Senator Cardin hopes for floor vote on Great Ape Protection Act

I got a great email message from U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland). He is my Senator, and I had written him, repeatedly, asking for his support for the Great Ape Protection Act. I told his campaign that I would not send a penny in donations until he supported Senate Bill 810. Sure, I was heartened, and hopeful, watching him preside over a Senate subcommittee hearing, where he seemed to lend support to proponents of SB 810, but I still had doubts. And then, today, I got this message:
“Dear Mr. Forsythe:” his email message began. (I’m a Ms., not a Mr., but I quibble. The good stuff follows...)

Thank you for sharing your support for S. 810, the Great Ape Protection Act. As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, I believe that the cruel treatment of animals is wrong, and I am proud to be an advocate of legislation that protects animal welfare. This year, I received an award from the Humane Society for my demonstrated leadership on animal protection legislation.
The protection of apes and chimpanzees is a pressing concern. I have co-sponsored legislation along these lines in the past, including the Protect America's Wildlife Act, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, and the Shark Conservation Act. All of these bills work to end animal cruelty and provide living creatures with the protection they deserve and need.
As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, I chaired a hearing on April 24, 2012 to discuss the Great Ape Protection Act and other pieces legislation. We heard insightful testimony from expert witnesses while discussing the implications of the December 2012 report from the Institute of Medicine entitled “Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity.” This hearing was a necessary step in moving S. 810 forward and it is my hope that this legislation will be passed by the committee and a vote on the floor of the Senate later this year.
In the meantime, I am continuing to work with my colleagues to ensure that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is sufficiently funded to enforce key animal welfare laws. With an increase in funds for enforcement, the Federal Government can better protect the welfare of millions of animals, including those at commercial breeding facilities, laboratories, zoos, and slaughterhouses. Recently, I joined a number of my colleagues in cosigning a letter requesting full funding to enforce animal welfare laws.
Thank you again for bringing this bill to my attention. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

What happens to old research chimps when the money runs out?

All indications point to the end, or at least the beginning of the end, of federal funding for research on chimpanzees. Hurrah! Soon the chimpanzees will have the retirement they so desperately deserve, in sanctuaries where they will run free in the sunshine! And they all live happily ever after!
Not so fast, especially if Yerkes National Primate Research Center is any indication.
Yerkes’ big grant for research on aging ended a couple of weeks ago, so the researcher stopped her work. Another chimpanzee research project could possibly start up again “doing auditory stuff,” from what I’ve heard but it is looking dead as well because funding is a big question.

This 1923 photo shows Dr. Robert M. Yerkes
with Chim, a bonobo (right), and Panzee,
a chimpanzee (right). The renowned
Dr. Yerkes thought both of the apes were

So, what will happen to the chimpanzees? Retirement in a sanctuary? Nope. While the National Institutes of Health has set up a working group to “consider the size and placement of the active and inactive populations of NIH-owned or -supported chimpanzees,” Yerkes is already planning what they will do with their chimpanzees. Yerkes is moving the young ones to the “Field Station,” where they will probably be used by Frans “Mr. Empathy” de Waal in his research.
The old chimps will just stay where they are, and die.

Yerkes will not send their senior chimpanzees to a sanctuary, even though the chimps deserve at least that after giving their entire lives to Yerkes’ research. I’ve heard it is because Yerkes doesn’t want to pay for the move. Plus, and I’m betting this is the real reason, Yerkes’ researchers want to look at the bodies of the dead chimps, to see their brains, etc. They may especially want to see the chimpanzees’ hearts. (Don’t get me wrong, I support studying apes’ hearts, especially if it involves the Great Ape Heart Project, since it will hopefully prevent cardiac disease in the captive ape population. But you would think that smart people could find a way to look at dead chimps after their death at a sanctuary…) If the elderly chimpanzees go to a place like Chimp Haven, they will just be cremated after they die, Yerkes’ researchers fear.  
The Yerkes researchers keep tabs on the Georgia Animal Rights and Protection protesters, who are leaders in the effort to convince Yerkes to retire Wenka and the other senior chimpanzees. People who have worked at Yerkes assure me that Yerkes is not going to retire Wenka. I was also told, “a host of the other chimps they [GARP] want released are already dead.”
Wouldn't Yerkes management at least have the heart to let us know about the deaths of the chimpanzees? No harm would come from that, surely?
Yerkes does not release the names of their dead animals. The only time the public gets a list is when someone from the inside “steals” the information. And then, the only way insiders will know is if he or she works with the chimpanzees and, even then, half the time they find out from someone other than the vets. In one major understatement, I’m told that Yerkes managers “are very protective of all that information.”
So the moral of this story, boys and girls, is not to get your hopes raised too high about sanctuary for the chimpanzees who have been used up by federally-supported research. People like Stuart Zola, director of Yerkes Research Center, want to keep the chimps for their brains and their hearts because, obviously, the people at Yerkes lack them.

Detroit Zoo's mother chimp should count her lucky stars

Akira and Akati (Detroit Zoo photo)
I woke up this morning to a lovely story in a Royal Oak, Mich., newspaper about the “attachment” of the Detroit Zoo baby chimpanzees to their mom, Akati. Bob Lessnau, curator of mammals, says that Akati, who was born in 1987 and went to the Detroit Zoo in 1989 (taken away from her mother, Vicky, at Lincoln Park Zoo, by the way), “has been a real good mother” to her two youngsters, Ajua and Akira. “She is interested, attentive and protective,” Lessnau says.
Despite Akati’s early removal from her mother, she is a lucky mom. The early zoo chimpanzees especially the females didn’t have it so good.
Like millions of Michigan kids, I loved watching the young chimpanzees during the Detroit Zoo chimp show “era,” which lasted from 1934 to 1984. Despite having a ready supply of chimpanzees, no chimpanzee was ever born at the zoo for most of that time, at least according to their official records. There were no chimpanzee births until 1974, when Glenda gave birth to twins. One died immediately, the second died a couple of weeks later.
How is it that no babies were born from the zoo’s first chimpanzee in 1932 until 1974, a span of 42 years? Today, most female chimps in zoos are on one of several human brands of oral birth control pill, but the Detroit Zoo didn’t institute birth control until 1992… so why weren’t any baby chimpanzees born? A closer look at the chimpanzee records gives some hints.
First, the zoo generally bought males. Less than 13 percent were female. From 1945 to 1974, the year of the first chimpanzee birth, the Detroit Zoo bought at least 93 baby chimpanzees, although history books published by the zoo indicate that even more “undocumented chimpanzees” were brought in. Of the 93 documented chimpanzees, twelve were females. (Another six are identified as “unknown,” even though they have names like Dick, Frank, and Ricky, so I’ve taken the liberty of putting them in the “male” category.) Even when they had females, they got rid of them before they started maturing, at around nine or ten years old.
The lopsided male-female ratio brings up another question. Why didn’t the zoo want female chimpanzees? The answer might astound people who imagine that little girl chimpanzees would be so cute: the zoo didn’t want them because they didn’t weren’t attractive. They got rid of the few girls that they had as soon as they started to mature because female bottoms swell and turn a bright pink as ovulation approaches. That causes natural competition among the male chimps, and chimpanzees fighting for a chance to copulate were not an appropriate skit for the chimp show. The zoo wanted to save parents the awkward embarrassment of having to get into the whole sex discussion during a fun day at the zoo. Causing embarrassment over natural functions tends to reduce chimp show admissions, and zoo revenues.
Where would the zoo ship female chimpanzees who were about to become sexually mature? How about to the Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery in Primates (LEMSIP), where breeding programs kept females in a constant reproduction cycle? Think for a minute what that means. The only way to keep a chimpanzee breeding is to take away her baby, so she can get pregnant again. Taking a baby is as traumatic for a chimpanzee mother as it is for a human mother. You have your child, you hold and nurture her, and love her, and then someone comes in with a gun and shoots you with a tranquilizing dart. Before you even fall over on top of your baby, still seeking to protect her, someone has rushed in to grab her from you. And the cycle repeats. And repeats. And you are left with empty arms, and an emptier heart, every time.
Four of Detroit’s young female chimps went to LEMSIP. Glenda, the mother of the ill-fated twins, went to three labs! (LEMSIP, Southwest, and Bastrop.) Another one ended up at Holloman Air Force Base, where the government was breeding chimpanzees for experimentation in the aeronautical program.
The Detroit Zoo did keep two of the females of that era around for a while. Abby and Mia were both born in Africa in 1965. The zoo brought them both in specially to breed, not to entertain. In 1974, Abby had a little girl, Britannia. Two years later, for some reason, Detroit shipped Abby out. By the time she was 16 years old, still a young adult, she was in the bioinvasive research program in Bastrop, Texas, now named Michael E. Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research.
The zoo bought Mia in January 1983 to be a breeder, but her timing was unfortunate. That year, zoo director Steve Graham decided to shut down the great ape exhibit and build a new one so he had to move the chimpanzees out. By August, just eight months after bringing Mia to her new home in Detroit, the zoo got rid of her by transferring her to the Primate Foundation of Arizona, a facility that ran a breeding operation to supply chimps to biomedical experiments. Mia died two years later, when she was about 20 years old.
Chimpanzees have feelings and emotions much like us, but back then no one at the Detroit Zoo was concerned about how these young females felt, how their mental health – and indeed their physical health – was affected by the cavalier decisions. The chimpanzee exhibition/exploitation/research industry just shrugged it off. Sorry girls. Deal with it.
Today, Akati should count her lucky stars that she is living under enlightened zoo management that cares for their chimpanzees and tries to do what is best for them. Happy Mother’s Day, Akati!

Saturday, May 12, 2012

"My baby chimps needed the love of a chimp mom"

As we celebrate Mother’s Day, I’m glad that Roberta Herman agreed to share more about her life with chimpanzees. Her memories of meeting real chimpanzee mothers provide a thoughtful insight.
I never yearned for a monkey or a chimpanzee when I was young. Not even a monkey doll. I loved nature and especially animals, and was always helping the ones in need. From butterflies and birds, to dogs and cats, I was always bringing something home to nurse to health. If the need was beyond my young capabilities, I would find help.
When older and married, 25 years ago, there was suddenly a chimpanzee who needed to be rescued from an abusive situation. I never intended to become a caretaker or a human mother to a chimpanzee. But I was there and I couldn’t just walk away. So, my husband and I took in Charley.
My husband and I knew it wasn’t good to have one chimp alone in a captive situation. She needed another chimpanzee to relate to. We sought out a breeding compound in Missouri to find a relative, or at least a companion, for Charley. We found out that Charley’s sister was there. Casey was just a few months old, and she was for sale, so we scraped up enough to pay for her and made our way to Missouri. At first, it seemed like a wonderful place… but I soon discovered its dark side.
When we arrived, there were five very young chimps in baby clothes in playpens. Some were drinking milk from baby bottles. The owner took my husband and me into the basement. It was very dark, with dungeon-like cages. 
And I met her. I met “my” Charley’s real mother. She was living with three other females who comprised the breeding group for the big male. These chimpanzees had produced “my” babies. The breeder explained how she was able to coax each mother chimpanzee to put her baby in a little box attached to her cage, just three days after the baby was born. That way, the breeder could retrieve the baby. “Pull it” is how she put it. My Charley and my Casey had been pulled from their mother just 72 hours after they took their first breaths.
The breeder explained how some of the babies were put “on reserve” for a chimp trainer who used the chimpanzees in entertainment. Before they went into training, though, the breeder sent the babies to another woman in Florida, who “nurtured” the chimpanzees as if they were human, even dressing the infant chimps in human baby clothes. It worked out well for her, financially, because she was a professional photographer. She would bring the clothed infants to parties and events, offering to take pictures of the people with this adorable baby chimpanzee. When the baby was old enough to be trained, about 2 or 3 years old, she sent them off to the trainer. It was the same trainer who we witnessed abusing his chimpanzees. We had rescued Charley from that trainer.
I was intrigued with these wonderful baby chimpanzees, and I just wanted to take Casey home to be with her sister. I wondered how the mother chimpanzees were feeling about having their babies pulled, but I convinced myself that we were doing the right thing.
Since then, I have painfully realized how cruel it really is, to deprive a mother chimpanzee of her babies. It is especially cruel to the baby chimpanzee, who needs her mother, grandmother, sisters, and aunts to learn what is important, to live a full life as a chimpanzee. Not as a human baby substitute.
I was not able to have children, but I am not sure what kept me on the path of living with chimpanzees. They weren’t pets or substitute children to me. They were my responsibility to care for, until I could place them somewhere safely. People did refer to them as my kids... So, am I not able to admit they were “my babies,” even to this day? Did my maternal instinct drive my decision to adopt chimps? I did, and still do, love them very much, even though I rarely see them at their new sanctuary home.
I have thought about what true motherly love is and ask myself now if a maternal instinct can become twisted. If an obsession can develop to fill a need or a void and a selfish possessive instinct can take the place of true motherly love. One could love someone to death, with a rationalization that it is justified because of supposed love or sacrifice. This was very evident in the tragedy of Travis, a drugged and disoriented pet chimp who went into a rage and tore off the face and hands of his owner’s friend.
I tried to do my best with Charley and Casey, but their
lives would have been much better with a chimp mom.
We can’t turn back time. But now, as we celebrate Mother’s Day, I implore anyone who is considering buying or adopting a pet chimp or monkey in order to “mother” it, thinking the animal will have a better life in a human household: please reconsider. I tried to do my best to mother the chimps I adopted, but I know their lives would have been much better if they could have stayed with their real mothers, in a habitat that provides sunshine and air and room to play.
If baby chimpanzees can’t live free in their true jungle home, my fervent prayer is that they be placed in a sanctuary, where they have the freedom to be true to their nature, as much as possible. That means they need a chimpanzee mother who is either their natural mother or a surrogate.
Baby chimpanzees need to know the love of a chimp mom.
Roberta Herman
Note from Dawn: After many years of caring for her chimps in her home, Roberta was finally able to place two of them, Casey and Murray, at a sanctuary, Center for Great Apes.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Dear Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,
I’m not sure of the correct blogging etiquette about responding to vitriolic attacks by the ever present, ever cowardly, Anonymous. Regardless of etiquette, I will respond to you today. For those readers who may not have seen your comment to my post, Hey Tropicana, stop exploiting little Aiden!, I will share it here.
“you know dawn from one mentally problemed from my past to another you have really hit the big time, i read your little gag about your mentor and her husband saving the little chimps, and as soon as they scored the chimp it died but no one botered to say how or why ,nor did you ,only just matter of factly, i've now read most of your rant and enough to see and fortunately realize that one-hundred percent of your information is absolutely false and distorted, you haven't bothered to find out yourself first hand about pam zoppe, she does not have and has never had an animal sanctuary. her sister yes, have you been there yourself or just listened to second hand information like the rest of your so called animal rights mantra, and as far as your human and animal abusive father, i suggest you find an ACOA group to attend (ADULT CHILDREN OF ALCHOHOLICS AND PEOPLE FROM DISFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES.) As it stands now you are a misinformed nut case and yes there are hundreds of people just like you out there who will jump on the wagon with you like the saying goes "give the people a lite and they'll follow it anywhere. I'm amazed to some degree that companies like tropicana thinks you all are the only ones drinking orange juice. ordinarilly i wouldn't necessarily go as far as right out call you a nut case but after reading all the different distorted b.s. you have posted, i just don't seem to find any other way to describe you and you little mentally distorted planet you and a few others live on, did you ever consider the reason more people didn't respond from the other side yet was they've got a life and are busy contributing things of substance to the world, oh and hey what do you do to make your see everyone who has a chimpanzee or a dog or a cat or any animal for that matter domestic or wild, is not an animal abuser nor a just for profit schiester, some people genuinely love there animals as well and have found a way to responsibly show the public how they can have a repore and love for an animal as well as educate the public about them informatively and res ponsibly, and if the make money doing that then,well, that's o.k. because this is america, and if we could put that message out there for free i'm sure they would love that. and yes i know chance,pam and their family and they are all leaving a wonderful honest and loving footprint on the planet.”
Let me start at the beginning, Anonymous. Yes, I’ve had some rough times in my life, like so many in this world. An abusive, alcoholic, and drug dependent father who killed himself in front of me loaded me with guilt that took most of my life to deal with. It was a sorrow that my brother evidently had to resolve by blowing off his own head with a high-powered rifle. It is painful to write about, but I do it because I hope that an open discussion of suicide, alcoholism, and domestic abuse will help others who are quietly carrying their own pain. My heart is with those who have written personal notes to me, sharing their own tragedies. But thanks, Anonymous, for your kind reference to ACOA.
I can understand why you disagree with my posts about Pam Rosaire and her chimp shows, since you mistakenly think that removing baby chimpanzees from their mothers and dressing them up and teaching them tricks will, somehow, “educate the public about them informatively and responsibly.” She has evidently taught you that this is all okay, when it isn’t. And as far as any errors in my posts, I have asked Pam to contact me. I have sent private FB messages, web e-mails and, finally, tried an open letter on my blog. She has not seen fit to respond. It’s hard to have a respectable dialogue when the other person won’t speak.
Oh, and about “your mentor and her husband saving the little chimps”? Roberta is one of the many people I’ve “met” over the internet after I started my blog. She isn’t my mentor, but I respect her courage in coming forward to discuss their time living with chimpanzees, and I especially respect their decision to give their chimps a real life in a sanctuary, where they can be chimps (as much as captivity will allow). I’m not sure why you’d throw an ad hominem attack at her, unless it was because she illustrates the unselfish nature that exploiters lack.
Hmmm, “mentally distorted planet” that others and I live on? Well, I have to agree with you there, at least a little bit. It is a sick world out there, isn’t it? Thank goodness we’ve got organizations like PETA, the Humane Society, In Defense of Animals, and others who are fighting to protect animals from the abusers who deliberately and maliciously hurt animals.
Isn't it funny how we all thought this was funny -
but then most of us grew up and learned better.
(That's my dad, Art Brown.)
Finally, let me address your attack on my “animal rights mantra.” Like you, I enjoyed the antics of little chimps who were taught funny tricks. One of the few joys of my childhood was watching my dad with the Detroit Zoo chimpanzees, and especially loving the times when he brought them home with him. To this day, I remember the first time I touched a chimp’s hand. It was magical. It was the 1950s, before most of the zoo world and almost all of the adoring public realized the extent of emotional, and often physical, suffering the chimpanzees were going through. Certainly, the public didn’t know that those little bundles of laughter were destined for painful deaths in medical laboratories after their brief stints on stage. But the world has grown up, Anonymous, and many of us regret the suffering the zoo chimps went through on our behalf. So, yes, I have an animal rights mantra that I carry high. Animals have a right to our respect for who (not what) they are, and they deserve to live out their lives free of exploitation and abuse. I am so terribly sorry for the people who object to that.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Will CareerBuilder stop using chimps for their stupid ads?

Right about now, marketing departments should be in full gear, planning for their 2013 Super Bowl ads. Will CareerBuilder continue to turn a deaf ear to the pleas of animal welfare experts and many in the job searching public? Do we have to start planning, now, for a boycott? Today, I am sending this letter to Matthew Ferguson, CEO of CareerBuilder. He will likely toss this letter aside, as he has so many. But please join me, and send your own letter. Maybe, someday, he will listen to us.

May 8, 2012
Matthew W. Ferguson, CEO
200 North LaSalle Street
Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60601
Dear Mr. Ferguson,
I know that many experts have tried to reach out to you over the years. The Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have made the case , publicly and through letters. I am just one person, and I may not make a difference in your marketing calculations, but I have to try. Right about now, your marketing department is solidifying plans for your 2013 Super Bowl ad. Please, Mr. Ferguson, do not use live chimpanzees in your Super Bowl ad, or any other ads, ever again.
CareerBuilder’s 2012 ad was universally panned. MyFOXdc said the CareerBuilder ad was one of the five worst ads in the Super Bowl telecast. New York Times advertising reporter Stuart Elliott gave it a thumbs down. "CareerBuilder brought back its chimpanzees dressed as humans, meant to personify nitwit co-workers. But the only nitwits were the creators of the commercial, who ignored a growing belief on Madison Avenue that it is wrong to use live apes in ads," Elliot wrote. AdRant’s Brand Bowl 2012 named the CareerBuilder ad one of the five least effective. In an analysis of tweets, they found that the ad got a dreadful combination of low volume of chatter and low positive commentary. Even Global Animal, who gave a "paws up" to the widely opposed Skechers ad, gave a decidedly "paws down" to CareerBuilder.
So, I ask, why continue to exploit chimpanzees for a failed advertising campaign? Your creative team meant to make fun of the chimpanzees, but CareerBuilder was the one ridiculed.
CareerBuilder’s use of live chimpanzees for a cheap laugh is no laughing matter. In fact, your company is hurting chimpanzees, both captive and wild, with your irresponsible exploitation of chimpanzees in marketing campaigns over the years.
First, you need to know that your company’s assurance that no chimpanzees were harmed during filming is an empty declaration. The harm happens behind the scenes, before the animals arrive on set. The chimpanzees featured in your ads were traumatized as babies. Trainers take baby chimpanzees from the arms of their mothers and subject them to social isolation, forcing them to become malleable “entertainers.” By using live chimpanzees for advertising, CareerBuilder supports an industry that hurts the chimpanzees from the beginning of their lives, through their youthful isolation, and during often-abusive training.
You also need to be aware of what happens to the chimpanzees after they spend two, three, or maybe five years in show business. They become too strong to handle and are cast aside. The individuals and companies (like CareerBuilder) that exploit them don’t pay for their care for the 40 or 50 years that remain in their lives. Trainers dump them at seedy roadside zoos, or if the chimpanzees are very lucky, they may be rescued by increasingly overstressed and underfunded sanctuaries. Several zoos participating in the Chimpanzee Species Survival Program, a program of the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, also rescue chimpanzees from the entertainment industry. I should point out that several of the chimpanzees in earlier CareerBuilder ads are in a sanctuary and receive no financial support from your company. Their ongoing care is funded by private individual donors.
But the concern about the CareerBuilder ads goes beyond the harm inflicted on these individual chimpanzees. It extends to the insidious damage done to conservation education efforts. A public that laughs at ridiculous and unnatural antics of costumed chimpanzees is less likely to understand that chimpanzees are part of an endangered species that needs protection. Using chimpanzees in advertising actually hurts conservation education efforts for chimpanzees in the wild. In a study published last summer, primatologist Steve Ross followed up on 2008 survey data showing that the public is less likely to think that chimpanzees are endangered compared to other great apes, and that this is likely the result of media mis-portrayals” in movies, television, and advertisements. Dr. Ross’ research found that people seeing images in which chimpanzees are shown in typically human settings (such as an office space as shown in the CareerBuilder ads) were more likely to perceive wild populations as being stable and healthy compared to those seeing chimpanzees in other contexts. Wild populations are not stable, nor are they healthy.
The threats against chimpanzee conservation are so dire that we simply cannot afford to “dumb down” the public perception. Your continued use of live chimpanzees, if that is what you plan, would confirm a deliberate interference with the conservation education that must take place if we are to save the remaining chimpanzees in the wild.
Advertisers have known for a long time that anthropomorphized chimpanzees—chimpanzees in human clothes and in human situations—sell. In the 1950s and ’60s, baby boomers were introduced to a legion of chimpanzees in movies and on TV, selling products and entertaining the child in all of us. Back then, the public was innocent about the harm being done to the animals. We didn’t know that the open mouth chimpanzee “grin” is usually a grimace of fear.
It’s different today. Thanks to decades of research and an increasing interest in animal welfare, we can no longer claim ignorance.
While CareerBuilder scorns the expert opinions of primatologists and the concerns of animal advocates everywhere, responsible companies are listening. Pfizer created an innovative ad campaign for Robitussin using a computer-generated image of an orangutan. Other responsible companies are creating innovative marketing campaigns with new computer-generated imagery technology instead of real animals, but CareerBuilder continues to exploit live chimpanzees in outdated ads that harken back to the mindless exploitation of the last century.
CareerBuilder’s ads could reflect and illuminate your desired identity as a technological leader. Imagine the reaction if you transformed the zany chimpanzees of 2012 to computer-generated chimpanzees with the power that exploded from the movie screens of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. (Check out Imaginarium Studios U.K. for some of the amazing possibilities.) CareerBuilder could be avant-garde instead of retrograde. Your company could be a leader instead of the butt of jokes. You could help rather than hurt.
Dawn A. Forsythe