Four or Five Legs?

Legend has it that Abraham Lincoln once posed a riddle: How many legs does a dog have if you count his tail as a leg? Came the answer, "Five." Replied Lincoln, "No, four. Counting a tail as a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Calling a sanctuary an animal sanctuary does not make it a safe place to send animals. Nor does it make it a great place to donate money. Case in point, the pseudo-sanctuary was probably several hundred thousand dollars in red last year, and still the pseudo-sanctuary board of directors paid the husband and wife "directors" approximately $141,175 in annual salaries for 2008 (he was paid about $73,368 and she was paid about $67,807-- health care benefits not included).

Despite all the documents on the web, individual owners and research/universities still place their animals at the pseudo-sanctuary. It just goes to show these people/places do not thoroughly investigate their animal(s) "final home." It's all a matter of expedience, I suppose.

Speaking of expedience, the pseudo-sanctuary's board of directors decided it was best not to go against the USDA/APHIS after voting in October 2007 to proceed on with the hearing.  I hear the pseudo-sanctuary is wants to reach a "deal" with the USDA.  Should be interesting to see if they are successful or not.  I guess the first step towards this "deal" is to open the non-regulated property to inspectors.  This is a good first step for the animals!

Tiger Cub's Plight

I received word this weekend the pseudo-sanctuary acquired another baby cub last Friday--this time it was a baby tiger cub named Zee Zee. I have little doubt the so-called board of directors were not notified in advance of the latest acquisition and goodness knows how much money accompanied little Zee Zee. The sad reality is there is no where to place Zee Zee on the touring property at this time, due to her small size as she is only about 4 months old. So where will she go? Will she also disappear to the second non-regulated, non-inspected property?

Meanwhile, the baby cougar cub disappeared from the touring property. Yesterday, a tour inquired on the status of Noel, the baby cougar cub, and was told she was "timid and scared," so they moved her to the second "sanctuary." Since the second property houses bears, wolves, tigers, and primates, I wonder where on the second property the lone cub is being housed? Assuming she is still alive, she can never return to the touring property and join the other cougars because that would be a violation of the current USDA exhibitor's permit issued to the touring property. So why was Noel moved? Is she alive? A newsletter went out this month describing the arrival of Noel to the pseudo-sanctuary--is the pseudo-sanctuary funding raising for another dead animal again?

The board met this weekend and it is my understanding three directors showed up for the meeting, with the VP calling in from his home in Florida. As usual, the "president's" spouse sat in on the meeting, even though he is not a board member. One of the board members, the so-called Treasurer, was seen taking cell phone pictures of Zee Zee in her transporter cage before the start of the meeting, exclaiming she wanted to show off the new cub to her friends. What a joke.

In response to all the animal reports coming from tours, the pseudo-sanctuary has banned video cameras from the property! Looks like they have something to hide afterall.

The tour confirmed Molly is gone. When asked why Zesus did not have a cage mate, the tour was told by the tour guide that the sanctuary tried for some time to find him a compatible mate without any luck. Molly has been gone about 1-2 months, so needless to say, the tour guide's statement is upsetting to say the least. As to the Louisiana tigers, they are also missing from the tour property.  The tour guide claimed they were moved to the second property.

Sadly, Rumby, another tiger, appears to be missing from her enclosure. The tour reported her cage as empty, and cross photographs confirms the fact. Last month, a tour reported Rumby looking horrible, moving very slowly and appearing very thin. Since yesterday's tour arrived when the tigers were being fed, Rumby should have been very noticeable. So now another tour will have to confirm Rumby's whereabouts, before a final pronouncement can be made as to her health and whereabouts.

So the plight of the pseudo-sanctuary's animals continue with no end in sight. God help Zee Zee, Noel, and Rumby...


Much Later:  Backup documentation...
ASUS - February 21, 2009 Meeting Minutes

Troubling Times

One would think with all the financial difficulties, the pseudo-sanctuary would avoid buying any more large purchases. One would be wrong. It was just discovered the pseudo-sanctuary, without board approval, purchased another large truck costing over $27k. The vehicle was listed in the sanctuary's name, but the owner's address was that of the personal residence of the directors. As mentioned numerous times, this is a board "in-name" only. Sad to say, the so-called Treasurer has no say-so regarding how donated money is spent at the pseudo-sanctuary.

Meanwhile, a new appeal (newsletter) was sent out to the pseudo-sanctuary's donor list this week. The appeal covered three main stories--the first one covered an animal acquisition over a year ago, but was written as it just happened "recently." The second story (non-animal related) covers an event that also occurred about a year ago, but the director got her facts wrong, no doubt in the hopes of appealing to donors with the deceptive spin. The third story covers the arrival of a baby cougar from Washington State last year, which as of last month, no one on tour has been able to see. When the tour asked if they could see the baby cougar, the tour guide became evasive and refused to disclose where the cougar lives today (assuming she is still alive today).

I also just learned the animal caretakers were told to find additional ways to reduce costs for animal care! The animals barely get enough care and now they have to do with even less?? Truly this is troubling times for the animals at the pseudo-sanctuary.

Financial History

While I was still with the pseudo-sanctuary in 2005, one of the female director told me she planned to cash-in on the hurricane disasters by taking in evacuated dogs and cats.

Late 2005 and throughout 2006, the pseudo-sanctuary sent out many appeal letters to the public, repeatedly asking for money for the"victims of the storm."

Curious to see how much the pseudo-sanctuary "cashed-in," I checked the records to see how much it grossed from 2004 (before hurricanes) to 2007 (after hurricanes):

2004: $1,440.726
2005: $1,420,278 (990 second version)
2006: $1,743,394
2007: $1,179,253

It appears the pseudo-sanctuary did indeed make money off the hurricane disaster in 2006.

So what happened in 2007? Why did the pseudo-sanctuary gross less in 2007 than 2004?

According to the pseudo-sanctuary, donations are down because of the Texas AG's investigation into its business practices. The director claimed she did not have enough time to fund raise for the sanctuary because she spent all her time responding to requests for information.

Earlier this year, the pseudo-sanctuary's board president told the board she was turning the presidency reins over to her husband for a few months so she could direct her "full attention" on fundraising and "other duties." There was no meeting. No official "vote." Just a declaration she was turning over the president's responsibilities to her husband, who was not a board member at that time. Needless to say, the members fell right in line and agreed with the switch. A few months later, the married couple apparently switched roles once again--and no surprise, the board apparently did not have a say on the switch back.

Since the bulk of the AG's document requests occurred in August 2006, December 2007, and April 2008, I have my own reasons why donations went down in 2007:

1. The number of animals acquired by the pseudo-sanctuary significantly declined in 2007. In the past, the pseudo-sanctuary used to take in large number of exotic wild animals, which also brought in large amounts of cash (listed as "donations"). In 2008, the pseudo-sanctuary claimed it took in 18 exotic animals, 40 primates, 50 domestic cats, and around 40 feral cats. At approximately $5-10k per tiger, $3k per monkey, and about $75 per cat, the sanctuary took in a lot less "donations" in 2008 than in previous years. It is unknown how many animals were taken to the pseudo-sanctuary in 2007, but it could not have been very many. Also, with the arrival of new acquisitions, the director would notify the local media, in hopes of garnering more donations from the local viewers. The director made it clear the media could only come out on her terms, such as covering the latest acquisitions. When the media started asking questions, wanting to see animals shown on past media stories, the director promptly turned them away. Failure to open up to the media resulted in a huge decrease in media coverage and donations.

2. The hurricane "crisis" is over! Since the pseud0-sanctuary did not prepare monthly financial reports, the directors had no idea how much money came in and went out. So, large amounts of $$ was spent on cell phone bills, employee and business meetings, travel, the director's personal rental house, etc. In 2006, the pseudo-sanctuary actually spent more money than it grossed!

3. In 2007, the pseudo-sanctuary was already in debt from the previous year and it appears the director spent little time fund raising for the animals. For the last two years, repeating appeals went out to the same group of people over and over again. No doubt donors were turned-off when they received the same newsletter every three or four months--what a waste of money! Chances are many of the appeals ended up in the trash.

4. In 2007, the pseudo-sanctuary actually had to comply with the law! That meant vehicles needed State Inspection stickers, vehicles needed to be registered with the State, worker's compensation insurance needed to be purchased, produce needed to be purchased for the primates, and more accurate payroll records needed to be maintained. For the first time in years, the pseudo-sanctuary actually had to track it expenditures.

5. In my opinion, the AG's Office had little affect on the pseudo-sanctuary's fund raising capabilities. The sanctuary chose to send out the same appeals letter over and over again. It has been reported, the female director spent little time at the office due to "illnesses," so she was essentially collecting a paycheck for little work, while the estranged spouse ran the operation.

Even though the pseudo-sanctuary started the 2008 year approximately $311,000 in debt, I believe the sanctuary can be saved, but only if the directors adhere to a very tight budget. That means taking pay-cuts; slashing the cell phone bills; cutting out the business and employee "meetings"; selling all the SUVs; stop renting houses for the female director; stop going on "IFAW investigations"; and so forth. It may take several years before the facilities are debt free, but I believe it is possible. What concerns me is that the directors chose to sacrifice animal health care for their personal expenditures. The board also concerns me greatly because they seem to be more focused on increasing the directors' pay, than on the number of animal deaths within the last two years.

By the way, I noticed the 990 returns did not list the credit card debts. It was my understanding the pseudo-sanctuary's vice president co-signed on a credit card back in 2006, so why wasn't this debt listed? Also, the director's homestead taxes have not been paid yet and is accruing penalty charges. Not to mention there is outstanding taxes due on the pseudo-sanctuary's property, and it too is accruing penalty charges. There is a lot of debt out there, and with the Nation's current financial situation, I am truly concerned the board will put the pseudo-sanctuary into further debt--especially if it continues to give animals' money to the so-called directors. This place cannot spend its way out of debt--hard choices need to be made and soon. The animals deserve so much better.