Abstract

Texas animal rescue groups are usually understaffed, underfunded and overcapacity because there are too many domestic animals. Animal rescues use social media to find adopters, fosters and volunteers, as well as collect donations, share information, promote events and build communities. Every rescue understands the difficulties present, and they have been attempting to use social media to combat these typical rescue issues specifically overpopulation. This study uses contextual analysis of three rescues’ Facebook posts in combination with semi-structured interviews. There are several frames each rescue uses because it increases interaction on Facebook. This study attempts to examine which frames rescues use most often and if they are effective.

Animal Rescue and framing theory: How rescues use social media to influence their followers

Most animal rescues do not usually have funds available for a public relations team or advertising. They also are not typically newsworthy, so they are not receiving any free publicity from the media. Since most rescues do not have much funding in general, the volunteers often run social media accounts for the rescue. They almost exclusively use social media and word of mouth because it is a low cost and often free way to engage with their audiences. These volunteers are everyday people that do not usually have training in public relations, advertising or journalism. They learn through trial and error what does and what does not produce engagement. Like most 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, animal rescues attempt to use social media to educate and involve the public as well as persuade them to volunteer or donate money.   Animal rescues are one of the only entities in Texas working toward a remedy to the significant domestic animal overpopulation problem. In 2018, Texas animal shelters euthanized 114,000 cats and dogs, which was more than any other state in the United States (Henrickson, 2019.) A majority of the general public is either not aware of the overpopulation issue or does not care. In order to work towards a solution, rescues need to reach the Texans that are not aware of the problem and cause a smaller portion of them to act either by volunteering their time and resources through fostering, adopting or donating money for supplies. Most research surrounding nonprofit organizations’ use of social media focuses on which platforms the organizations use and how their content and purpose varies from platform to platform. There is not an overwhelming amount of research that attempts to understand the effectiveness of the way nonprofits use social media, and there are no articles examining Texas animal rescue nonprofits specifically.

This study will examine the different ways three nonprofit Texas animal rescues of varying sizes and popularity use their most popular social media platform Facebook. The study focuses on a two-week period in the hopes to identify the most effective framing technique and to identify the most effective way of educating the general public about the need Texas has to control the domestic animal population and persuade the public to volunteer or donate. This study intends to examine framing theory by using qualitative research to understand the relationship between frames, the rescues, their audiences and shareholders.

Literature Review

John Hadley (2015) examined direct action advocacy communication tactics’ effects on animal rescue efforts. His study found that direct action communication was effective when phone calls, house visits and emails were used in combination with each other were more effective than they were when used individually. However, he found that animal advocacy groups with volatile volunteers were even more effective when using direct action to admonish threats to others. These threats included property damage, public attacks of character and harassment. Hadley believes that the broad categories of campaign strategies reflect that there are many different rescue and animal rights groups, each with their own beliefs on appropriate campaigning techniques.

John Hadley (2017) also proposed a solution for animal activists who had been accused of changing the subject from an animal welfare conversation to an animal rights conversation. He argued that if the definition of animal rights vocabulary was clearly defined in a way that aligned with “the theory of moral language use known as expressivism” and animal welfare, then they could discuss animal welfare without ever changing the subject, which is a common accusation in the animal activist arena.

Rebecca Rifkin (2015) conducted a study by surveying over 1,000 people that found 32 percent of Americans believe animals should have the same rights as humans. She also found that only 3 percent of Americans agree with the statement “animals require little protection from harm and exploitation since they are only animals,” and 51 percent of Americans are concerned about the treatment of household pets. Rifkin believes that commercials like the ASPCA commercials and documentaries like Blackfish are the reason for the increase of concern for animal welfare and the increase of Americans that believe animals deserve the same rights as people.

Debbie Rodan and Jane Mummery (2016) analyzed the Australian campaign “Make It Possible.” The campaign focused on animal welfare and used social media sites to appeal to the public. During their study of the campaign, they found that most people who identified as animal activists identified themselves as fitting into one or more of four frames: “being vegan or vegetarian, shopping for change, personal activism and public activism and advocacy.” They found that when animals were given human characteristics and emotion, people were more likely to empathize with them and were more likely to participate in the campaign’s call to action, which varied depending on each piece of content.

Marie Mika (2006) ran a series of focus groups involving non-activists to determine how effective the advertisements that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had created were. A lot of the more sensational advertisements were found to be off-putting. The example Mika sites is an image of a naked woman with different cuts of meat written on her body. She explains that the focus groups found the advertisement to be sensational and over the top. Mika reported the focus group found the advertisement ridiculous for comparing eating a hamburger to eating a person. Overall, the more targeting the advertisements were, the more off-putting the groups found animal rights movements.

Corey Lee Wrenn (2016) conducted a study that examined various moral shock tactics and abolitionists, people who do not want animals to be recognized as property and prohibit humans from using or exploiting them. Wrenn defines moral shocks as narratives, depictions, illustrations, or situations used and highlighted by activists to elicit change from their audience. She takes it one step farther by saying that these scenarios must include a factor that causes the audience member to stop and interact with the moral shock, because otherwise, it would not be shocking. Her literature review found that the effectiveness of moral shocks was in dispute. Her study also yielded inconclusive results.

Similarly, Ventura, Keyserling, Wittman and Weary (2016) conducted a study about using tours of animal facilities to shock people into caring about animal welfare. They argue that the reason most people are not animal activists is that the public is not aware of the conditions in which most domestic and farm animals live. Their study found people cared more about animal welfare and were more likely to act on a call to action after touring animal housing facilities.

Lyle Munro (2012) conducted his study over sociology in animal rights groups because the literature was significantly lacking sociological examination. He argues that most of the literature present is written from a philosophical point of view. He does not believe the information present is of much practical use. He examines several different theories in conjunction with animal rescues and animal rights, including Eliasian theory, Marxist realism, feminism, ecofeminism, and social constructionist theory. Munro supplemented the practical knowledge that was available in some periodicals at the time by explaining how these theories influence the practicalities of animal rights.

Leslie Irivne (2020) used framing theory to study the way animal shelters “think” about problems compared to the way the general public “thinks” about these issues. The two perspectives value different problems as more important, which creates issues when the shelters attempt to solve problems that the public views as less important but that are an issue in the everyday animal shelter volunteers’ or employees’ lives. She uses the term “think” for the interpretive processes shelters use during chaotic decision making. Irvine specifically examines the way the animal shelter thinks about why people drop their animal off at the shelter, which is called owner surrender, and the way the owner thinks about their reason for surrendering the animal to the shelter. Irvine gathered her research by conducting an ethnography of more than 300 hours spent in an animal shelter, which she does not name. She found that there was a significant amount of discourse in the way the shelter thinks versus how the owner surrendering their unwanted pet thinks. She relates this discourse to larger social problems like homelessness and poverty.

Geordie Duckler (2008) argued two major problems with the animal rights movement. The first problem he evaluates is that the law was created for man, not animals. He quotes Roman jurist Gauis, “hominum causa omne ius constitutum,” which translates to all law was established for man’s sake. He states that the second problem is that most animal rights activists lack basic knowledge of the law and how rights are created and defined. They also do not understand that by changing these laws so that certain animals have rights would strip other species of their rights. Most animal rights activists also do not understand that even though there is not a federal law protecting animal rights or welfare, there are states that do have laws that protect animals that federal law would override.

Katja Guenther (2017) conducted a study about the power volunteers have to buck the system of routine euthanasia in animal shelters. She begins with a narrative detailing her experience, pleading a sick dog’s case to live to the shelter staff. She was ultimately turned down, but she began organizing a way for a rescue group to step in and “tag” the animal. Tagging an animal means the rescue has agreed to take them out of the shelter and care for the animal until a home for it has been found. Guenter explains that for some animals, being tagged by a rescue is their last chance at a life outside of a crate. Guenther used her position as a shelter volunteer to conduct an ethnography. She observed other shelter volunteers and their resistance to accepting euthanasia as an inevitable part of shelters. The staff at the shelters have largely accepted that euthanasia is a necessary part of the process. However, volunteers are much less likely to accept it. Instead, they use the capital and experiences they have outside of the shelter to attempt to save the animals. She focused her study mainly on impounded dogs since that was where she was trained to volunteer.

Research Questions

Animal rescue is an easy rabbit hole to fall into, especially for passionate Texans. Before the internet, animal rescues had to work in close contact with the shelters to save animals. Rescuers had to visit the shelters or call other points of contact to save animals. Now, rescues have started to use Facebook as a way to interact with shelters, tag animals, arrange transport, find fosters, locate potential adopters, collect donations and share animals that still need rescuing. Animal rescues use trial and error to decide which tactics and frames work the best for their social media accounts. However, these rescuers gauge the performance of their social media solely through likes and engagements; they do not ask their followers why they interacted with specific posts more than others.

Framing theory is evident across rescues social media pages. There are certain truths that rescuers have come to accept because of the frames animal rescuers use on social media. Animal rescuers are not typically supportive of traditional pet stores or breeders. Rescues frame the traditional pet store by providing information about overpopulation in conjunction with breeders that are only adding more animals to the overwhelming problem while there are animals in shelters that cannot find homes. Rescuers have created a community-wide hashtag “#adoptdontshop” that they use when framing this issue. This causes rescue followers to accept that breeders must be a negative thing because the fact that breeding more animals only causes many more to die in shelters is the only information the rescues provide them. They do not provide information about how some breeders only breed dogs to fulfill specific needs people have like service dogs, K-9 dogs, or hypoallergenic pets for those with allergies.

Rescuers change the frames they use when their call to action changes. When they need people to donate money, they typically create a narrative surrounding a specific animal and frame the case as the animal will not receive the treatment it needs if there are not enough donations.

These questions seek to understand which frames are the most common and effective at causing people to act either by volunteering, adopting or donating to rescues, and when it is ineffective or even detrimental. There are not a lot of scholarly research articles about animal rescue, but there is a significant amount of academic research covering communication, framing, social media and nonprofits. These questions should provide valuable information to rescues and also contribute by filling a gap in the existing literature.

RQ1: How do animal rescues use frames in their Facebook posts?

RQ2: How effective are those frames?

Method

The participants in this study were pet owners and rescue supporters, people that have donated, adopted, fostered or volunteered their time to an animal rescue and social media administrators. They were interviewed in order to determine which frames were used and if the frames the rescues used during the two weeks were effective. The methods also included contextual analysis of three rescues’, The Saving Hope Animal Rescue Foundation, The Lone Star Dog Ranch Rescue and Animal Rescue Foundation of Texas, Facebook posts. These animal rescues were chosen because they were responsive to the study and agreed to participate. The posts analyzed were compared using frames and their number of impressions.

The directed interview technique, semi-structured interview (Treadwell, 2017) or focused interview (Merton, Fiske & Kendall, 1990) was used to ask the administrators and rescue supporters guiding questions that allowed appropriate follow up questions to be included as well. The questions asked the administrators about their experience with animal rescues and what role Facebook posts had in their interactions with the rescue. The follow-up questions varied depending on the interview were included for clarification and elaboration. The interview also asked questions about their knowledge of the overpopulation of domestic animals in Texas. The purpose of the interviews was to determine if they were influenced by frames used by the rescues on social media.

There were ten people that adopted, fostered, volunteered or donated on behalf of one of the rescues interviewed. Each interview lasted approximately one hour and included preliminary questions about their level of involvement in the rescue and general perceptions before asking them more specific questions about their opinion of the level of influence animal rescues’ social media had on them. A list of questions can be seen in Figure 1. The interviews were conducted over the phone and in person.

All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed and then analyzed for similarities. The COVID-19 virus affected the number of rescuers interviewed in person and via the phone since some rescues closed their doors and only employed essential personnel, which did not include their volunteers.

A content analysis of the three rescues Facebook posts found that each rescue had varying degrees of interaction, which coincides with the difference in followers. The Lone Star Dog Ranch Rescue has 196,000 followers on Facebook. The Saving Hope Animal Rescue Foundation has 21,261 followers, and The Animal Rescue Foundation of Texas has 9,914 followers. The number of impressions The Lone Star Dog Ranch Rescue receives is much higher than The Animal Rescue Foundation of Texas because of The Lone Star Dog Ranch Rescue’s large number of followers. The rescues do have a different number of page likes; however, this study focused on followers because not every person that likes the page follows the rescue. Posts only appear in the followers’ Facebook newsfeed. A comparison between the effectiveness of frames between these three pages based on impressions was difficult because of the substantial differences between the number of followers. However, the interviews provided supporting information that helped clarify the effectiveness of the frames. The rescue social media administrators were also interviewed to evaluate the reason they chose to use these frames. A list of questions can be seen in Figure 2.

All of the Facebook posts were coded into themes and then analyzed for frames. The Facebook posts were gathered into a PDF file that was printed and then cut into individual posts. These posts were then sorted into different themes. Then similar themes were combined to create the five main thematical categories that were then analyzed for frames. These five themes were pet biographies, sick animal stories asking for donations, memes of adoptable animals, euthanasia list pleas for fosters, and successes. Some posts did not fit well into a theme that were excluded from the framing analysis.

Results

            RQ1: How do animal rescues use frames in their Facebook posts? The social media administrators all stated that they use social media to generate word of mouth and try to get the most shares for their adoptable animals. The administrators also said that Facebook was their most-used platform because most people that are old enough to adopt an animal on their own use Facebook more than the other platforms. Also, Facebook was the only platform The Lone Star Dog Ranch was aware of in 2009; Instagram did not exist, and Twitter was only a few years old. All three administrators said they had the most followers on Facebook, which also caused them to use it more. When asked how they knew The Saving Hope Foundation Animal Rescue administrator “just knew.” The administrators were also interviewed about the frames they used in layman’s terms. They answered that they always wanted the posts to make the rescue “look good.” They also said they tried to create posts that documented the animals when they were first brought into the rescue, especially when the animals had significant health problems that were visible in photographs. The Lone Star Dog Ranch Rescue wrote in an email that transparency and honesty are two factors they consider in each post they create, so they share each dog’s medical history with the Facebook page. This transparency allows any potential adopters to be aware of any issues that will be ongoing with the animal. Rescues also stated that they follow similar rescues for inspiration, which explains why some of their posts are similar.

            RQ2: How effective are those frames? The context analysis identified five common themes in the Facebook posts: biographies for pets, narratives about a sick animal asking for memes of animals, shared posts of animals on the “last call” euthanasia list that beg for someone to foster or adopt them and success stories. Once the common themes were identified, they were used to identify frames.

The rescues use pet biographies to frame each animal as a future family member for their forever home, a common name for the pet’s adoptive family. They use more playful frames when explaining the pets’ personalities. The administrators change the terms that have negative connotations like “pet aggressive” to more favorable terms like “Charlotte is a diva who would do best as an only pet.” The Lone Star Dog Ranch Rescue, however, does not do this. Their rescue chooses not to frame their aggressive animals more playfully because, according to their social media administrator, it is irresponsible not to be transparent about something as serious as animal aggression, and their potential adopters have a right to know everything about the animal they are considering.

They frame the donations and the euthanasia list by providing context, framing the followers of the page as the animals’ last hope. They frame the situation as if a follower does not step up to help; then, the animal will die. It is not always true, but it is seen throughout The Saving Hope Animal Rescue Foundation and Animal Rescue Foundation of Texas Facebook posts. The Lone Star Dog Ranch makes similar requests, but they post pictures of the veterinarian bill with a picture of the animal after it has received treatment asking for help. All of the rescues also create follow up posts thanking the donators because without them, it wouldn’t have been possible along with a picture of the dog running and playing at the ranch.

The Lone Star Dog Ranch Rescue uses previous donations to purchase dogs that would otherwise go to a puppy mill to live in poor conditions. They place a call to action on the bottom of the post showing the animals they have just saved and often even use the donate button to ask for donations to save future animals in need at the next puppy mill auction. The donators all claim that they donated because if they did not, then nobody else would, which confirms that the frame the rescue used works to encourage more donations.

They use photos to frame the adoptable animals as humanlike, funny and loveable. They do this by choosing only the “cutest photos” and then creating a “memorable caption,” according to The Saving Hope Foundation Animal Rescue’s social media administrator. The Animal Rescue Foundation of Texas utilizes memes the least because their engagement is not as good on meme posts according to their volunteer social media administrator. They also said that their level of creativity on a given day plays a factor in creating memes as well. The Lone Star Dog Ranch utilizes this type of post the most. They receive a moderate level of engagement on these types of posts just slightly behind the success stories themed posts. The adopters interviewed stated that they enjoyed the memes, but it was not a deciding factor when they decided to adopt.

They use successful adoption stories and veterinarian visits to show the way they are using their donations for supplies and vet visits to save animals. The Lone Star Dog Ranch Rescue’s social media administrator said the success stories are her favorite to create because it allows the followers to see the animal’s whole story from the intake to the adoption. These three rescues make a post at least once a month, stating that adoptions allow them to pull more animals from the shelter, which then shortens the total amount of animals euthanized. They place the adoptions in a framework that encourages people to continue to aid the rescue in their efforts to save and spay and neuter the animals in their care. The rescues emphasize the fact that they do not adopt out animals that have not been spayed or neutered because intact animals only contribute to the growing overpopulation problem. They also state that even pure breed animals end up in the shelters, so spaying and neutering are important for all of the animals, not just mixed-breed animals.

Discussion

The findings of this study found that animal rescues use three main frames that they change based on the situation, and they use these frames with the overall image of the rescue in mind. The frames identified were followers as the only hope, animals portrayed as having human characteristics, donations, adoptions and fosters make rescue possible. The rescues agreed that using these frames was a conscious decision to attempt to influence their followers into aiding the rescue. The findings from interviewing adopters, fosters, volunteers and donators showed that most of them learned about the rescue through social media, specifically Facebook. Although all three rescues used multiple social media platforms, they all said they use Facebook the most because they received the most engagement on the platform compared to other popular platforms like Instagram and Twitter.

During interviews, the majority of supporters agreed that Facebook posts directly influenced their decision to adopt a particular animal. Three of those adopters interviewed found their animal through a Facebook post that included the animal’s picture and biography. They said that finding an animal through Facebook was more convenient than visiting a shelter or looking through adoption websites like petfinder.com. They also agreed that adopting from a rescue was better than adopting directly from the shelter because the rescues can provide them more information about the animal and its background than the shelter can. Some of the adopters’ responses can be seen in their own words in Figure 3.

The responses from the adopters and donators clearly evaluate the rescues’ use of frames, especially framing animals with human characteristics. These posts also receive a large number of shares. The supporters interviewed also stated that they enjoyed donating to the rescues because it allowed them to make a difference quickly. Also, they would be able to see how their donation directly helped because the rescues posts the outcome of the donations. Most of the supporters of the rescues did not even realize that the messages they were receiving from the Facebook posts were being framed in order to influence them into supporting them.

Limitations

The way the administrators and rescue supporters were interviewed varied. All of the supporters were interviewed in person or over the phone. However, the social media administrators were interviewed through two phone calls and one email. The inconsistency of interviewing techniques could have affected the way the interviewee responded to the question.

The COVID-19 virus also impacted the research for this study. The stay at home order did not allow for a focus group to take place. A focus group would have allowed for quicker identification of the effectiveness of the frames. It would have also allowed more schools of thought that had not been considered for this study to emerge than the semi-structured interview allowed. The focus group could have been conducted over Zoom, but the participants were more willing to participate in the interview via telephone over the Zoom option.

Further Research

This study would benefit from a larger number of interview subjects. Since the interview pool was small, three rescue social media administrators and ten rescue supporters, the qualitative data collected was not a large enough amount to make a generalization about the animal rescue industry as a whole. Also, the only people interviewed had either already worked for the rescue or supported the rescue by either donating, fostering, adopting or volunteering. The selection of interview candidates was biased because it did not include anyone who had followed the page but had not supported the rescue by one of the four main methods of support. This did not allow the people who followed but had not actively supported the rescue or participated in a call to action to explain why they had not supported the rescue yet and uncover the reasons why the frames may not have been as effective in influencing them as it was at influencing others.

Conclusion

This study examined two weeks of posts on the Facebook pages of The Lone Star Dog Ranch Rescue, The Animal Rescue Foundation of Texas, and The Saving Hope Foundation Animal Rescue. The content analysis found that there were five common themes, biographies for pets, narratives about a sick animal asking for donations, memes of animals, shared posts of animals on the “last call” euthanasia list that beg for someone to foster or adopt them and success stories. After sorting the posts into themes, frames were identified. The frames were followers as the only hope, animals with human characteristics, donations, adoptions and fosters make rescue possible.

The three Facebook administrators, one from each rescue, agreed to be interviewed either over the phone or via email. The interview process was semi-structured to allow for follow up questions as well as introductions of new ideas as the interview unfolded. This allowed for the creation of new questions that would otherwise not have been considered or asked. The administrators all said that their Facebook pages drive most of the donations and adoptions they receive. The pages were created to spread word of mouth and advertise adoptable animals that were not getting enough attention from adoption sites or foot traffic. The rescues also all agreed that the content they create is almost always created to improve (or solidify) the image of the rescue.

The ten supporters that were interviewed through a semi-structured interview had all adopted, donated or volunteered with one of the three rescues. All of the supporters were also followers of one of the rescues’ Facebook pages for at least one year. Almost all of the supporters agreed that Facebook helped them decide to adopt from a rescue; only one supporter disagreed, saying that they adopted directly through an animal shelter. Of the nine that agreed the Facebook pages influenced their decision to adopt, three chose to adopt specifically because they saw a picture of an adoptable animal they wanted. All ten of the participants agreed that they follow one of the rescues because they agree with the rescue’s values. The supporters and administrators interview responses identified frames and showed that most of them were effective, while some were more effective than others.

 

References

Duckler, G. (2008). Two major flaws of the animal rights movement. Animal Law, 14(2), 179—

200.

Guenther, K. M. (2017). Volunteers’ power and resistance in the struggle for shelter animal

survival. Sociological Forum, 32(4), 770—792. doi: 10.1111/socf.12376

Hadley, J. (2015). Animal rights advocacy and legitimate public deliberation. Political Studies,

            63(3), 696—712. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12105

Hadley, J. (2017). From welfare to rights without changing the subject. Ethical Theory and

            Moral Practice, 20(5). doi: 10.1007/s10677-017-9856-4

Henrickson, (2019). Texas killed more cats and dogs in 2018 than any other state. KXAN News.

            https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-killed-more-cats-and-dogs-in-2018-than-any-other-state/

Irvine, L. (2020). The problem of unwanted pets: A case study in how institutions “think” about

clients’ needs. Social Problems, 50(4), 550—566.

Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (1990). The Focused Interview: A manual of

            problems and procedures. Second Edition. New York: The Free Press, 1990.

Mika, M. (2006). Framing the issue: Religion, secular ethics, and the case of animal rights

mobilization. Social Forces, 85(2), 916—941.

Munro, L. (2012). The animal rights movement in theory and practice. Sociology Compass, 6(2),

166—181. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00440.x

Rifkin, R. (2015). In U.S., more say animals should have same rights as people. Gallup

            Organization.

Rodan, D., & Mummery, J. (2016). Doing animal welfare activism everyday: Questions of

identity. Journal of Media & Culture Studies, 30(4), 381—396.     Doi:10.1080/10304312.2016.1141868

Treadwell, D. (2017). Introducing communication research: Paths of inquiry. Third Edition.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ventura, B. A., Keyserling, M., Wittman, H., & Weary, D. M. (2016). What difference does a

visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy            farm. PloS One, 11(5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154733

Wrenn, C. L. (2016). Resonance of moral shocks in abolitionist animal rights advocacy:

Overcoming contextual constraints. Society and Animal, 21(2013), 379—394. doi:       10.1163/15685306-12341271

 

·       What rescues do you follow on social media? ·       How did you find these rescues? ·       Why do you follow them? ·       Have you ever interacted with the rescues’ posts? How? ·       Have you ever volunteered, donated, fostered or adopted? What led you to volunteer, donate, foster or adopt? ·       How do you decide to adopt your animals? ·       What posts do you interact with the most?

Figure 1: Questions for supporters

·       What is the main purpose of social media accounts for the rescue? ·       What is the most used social media platform for your rescue? Why? ·       How do you decide what content to include in posts asking for donations or fundraising? ·       What are your favorite posts to create? ·       How do you decide to word pet’s biographies? ·       What do you enjoy the most about running social media accounts?

Figure 2: Questions for administrators

·       “I saw Cleo on Facebook, and I just had to have her.” ·       “Scrubber was so spunky even in photos, so I filled out an application for him.” ·       “Spud needed somebody to step up. I adopted him after I watched him on Facebook.”

Figure 3: Adopter’s own words