.bmp)
It never ceases to amaze me how gullible people can be when it comes to animal causes. One would think, at a time when we are most aware about our environment--when everyone wants to be greener than Kermit the Frog--people wouldn't be so blissfully unaware of what is happening at many exotic animal sanctuaries.
There's a huge paradigm shift on how we view animals in captivity. Most people don't want to see animals living in small cages. They want to see animals either living wild and free (via satellite or cable from the comfort of their couch or lazy boy chair) or living in huge, natural enclosures, with waterfalls, and meadows, complete with flowers, butterflies, and bees buzzing around. People are much more demanding of zoos, in terms of ethical and housing standards. When it comes to standards of large exotic wild animal sanctuaries (most closed to the public by the way) people expect the hurt or unwanted animal to receive the best of care and housing so they can live their lives out in splendor. No one wants to hear about places, like the pseudo-sanctuary, that do not fulfill their promises because the directors divert the money for their own personal uses, right?
When a potential donor receives a heart tugging newsletter, complete with pictures of the injured or displaced animal, the donor reaches for his or her checkbook to donate money towards the animals' new "magical" enclosure and care. Writing the check makes the donor feel good because she thinks she's making a difference in the animal's life. Now I'm not saying all sanctuaries are bad, just the ones that never give a follow-up story on how the animal was doing after the donations poured into the facility. So, where are the media cameras--you know--the ones that covered the news story of the animals' arrival, posted the sanctuary's telephone number on the screen claiming "the animals need your help, please contact the XYZ sanctuary to make a cash donation" and yet conveniently never aired a follow-up story regarding the animals' progress one or two years later? Oh heck, how about even six months later? Are the animals still alive? Are they living in the promised large natural enclosures? If they live at the pseudo-sanctuary, then the answer is probably NO!
So here I come, splashing cold water on the faces of the public, saying the animals are dying in large numbers and are then tossed into large animal pits, and the donor's money goes towards the directors kids' vehicles, home building projects, etc. Hmmm...animals skipping through the meadow, sniffing trees and each other...or... dead animal pits filled to capacity and many more living in small quarantine cages, waiting for an opportunity to move into a large cage once the present occupant dies. Which one do you think the donor wants to believe?
In my particular case, I learned the pseudo-sanctuary refused to comply with a State order to turn over a complete listing of all the animals buried in the sanctuary's two (2) animal burial pits (12 feet deep and approximately 12 feet wide--completely filled with dead animals). The sanctuary claimed the listing was "confidential" and the State did not have the right to obtain this information. It is estimated that within a 10 year period approximately 1,000 animals died between its two operating properties. It's no wonder the pseudo-sanctuary claimed this to be "confidential." Can you imagine if some "fanatics" got their hand on the listing? Why it might actually force the pseudo-sanctuary to change its business practices by allowing the animals to live...receive vet care...provide species appropriate food...and give them their large natural enclosure promised from the start. But NO...the wall of silence has come crashing down, and for now the pseudo sanctuary gets to keep its confidential information... But like all secrets...this one will come out eventually!
There's a huge paradigm shift on how we view animals in captivity. Most people don't want to see animals living in small cages. They want to see animals either living wild and free (via satellite or cable from the comfort of their couch or lazy boy chair) or living in huge, natural enclosures, with waterfalls, and meadows, complete with flowers, butterflies, and bees buzzing around. People are much more demanding of zoos, in terms of ethical and housing standards. When it comes to standards of large exotic wild animal sanctuaries (most closed to the public by the way) people expect the hurt or unwanted animal to receive the best of care and housing so they can live their lives out in splendor. No one wants to hear about places, like the pseudo-sanctuary, that do not fulfill their promises because the directors divert the money for their own personal uses, right?
When a potential donor receives a heart tugging newsletter, complete with pictures of the injured or displaced animal, the donor reaches for his or her checkbook to donate money towards the animals' new "magical" enclosure and care. Writing the check makes the donor feel good because she thinks she's making a difference in the animal's life. Now I'm not saying all sanctuaries are bad, just the ones that never give a follow-up story on how the animal was doing after the donations poured into the facility. So, where are the media cameras--you know--the ones that covered the news story of the animals' arrival, posted the sanctuary's telephone number on the screen claiming "the animals need your help, please contact the XYZ sanctuary to make a cash donation" and yet conveniently never aired a follow-up story regarding the animals' progress one or two years later? Oh heck, how about even six months later? Are the animals still alive? Are they living in the promised large natural enclosures? If they live at the pseudo-sanctuary, then the answer is probably NO!
So here I come, splashing cold water on the faces of the public, saying the animals are dying in large numbers and are then tossed into large animal pits, and the donor's money goes towards the directors kids' vehicles, home building projects, etc. Hmmm...animals skipping through the meadow, sniffing trees and each other...or... dead animal pits filled to capacity and many more living in small quarantine cages, waiting for an opportunity to move into a large cage once the present occupant dies. Which one do you think the donor wants to believe?
In my particular case, I learned the pseudo-sanctuary refused to comply with a State order to turn over a complete listing of all the animals buried in the sanctuary's two (2) animal burial pits (12 feet deep and approximately 12 feet wide--completely filled with dead animals). The sanctuary claimed the listing was "confidential" and the State did not have the right to obtain this information. It is estimated that within a 10 year period approximately 1,000 animals died between its two operating properties. It's no wonder the pseudo-sanctuary claimed this to be "confidential." Can you imagine if some "fanatics" got their hand on the listing? Why it might actually force the pseudo-sanctuary to change its business practices by allowing the animals to live...receive vet care...provide species appropriate food...and give them their large natural enclosure promised from the start. But NO...the wall of silence has come crashing down, and for now the pseudo sanctuary gets to keep its confidential information... But like all secrets...this one will come out eventually!
