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.