God Bless Jake and Joel

This weekend it was my intention to review some case history, to include new information previously not reported on the blog. I wanted to write about how grateful I was the sanctuary is now under new management. I wanted to post a truly uplifting Thanksgiving message. This was not meant to be, however.

For you see, yesterday I was informed that Jake, the white crowned mangabey, was ill. According to the new director, the non-regulated animal caretakers informed her yesterday that Jake had been ill a couple of days and they already called the sanctuary's vet for assistance. Since the vet was out of town, she recommended he be given Benadryl and a liquid antacid. The new director was never informed he was ill until yesterday and according to other animal caretakers, Jake had shown signs of being ill (lethargic, congested, dehydrated) for over a week. Sadly, no one bothered to inform the new directors and so she was unable to seek medical care for him in time. I am heartbroken to report, Jake died either last night or early this morning.

The two animal caretakers simply sent a text message stating "Jake died" early this morning around 8:40am. When the director texted back for them to call her, she received a return text message they would call her later. The new director tried calling me around 9:00am to let me know what happened to Jake, but I did not arrive home to around 9:30am--it was after that time I received the sad news.

The new director and I are absolutely devastated. The new director plans to conduct an investigation into the Jake's cause of death to determine if he was sick and for how long. That means a necropsy of course. Statements will be collected from all the caretakers that worked or were in contact with Jake for the last week to determine how long Jake was sick and what action was taken to save him.

Regardless, it is my opinion, the two animal caretakers, responsible for Jake's care, should be made accountable for neglecting their duties and failing to obtain medical care which could have saved Jake's life. If the two animal caretakers purposely failed to notify the director of his declining health, they should be fired immediately. It makes one wonder how many other animals may have needlessly died at the sanctuary (besides the bear left to suffer with a stroke for two weeks and the primates left to die in the hot summer sun after sedation). It also makes one wonder how many other animals may be sick and dying right now at the second site! I heard the two animal caretakers spend way too much time in the warehouse and not enough time caring of the animals. If this allegation is true, they should be fired immediately for theft since they are stealing time and money from the animals by not executing their assigned duties and responsibilities. 

What breaks my heart is when I saw Jake's picture (above), I noticed how skinny he looked as compared to how he looked in 2005.  I wish I had gone out to see him personally when I was first invited back to the sanctuary by the new director.  Perhaps I could have saved his life.  If not, I would have at least made sure he did not die alone.  This is going to be one of the greatest regrets I will have to shoulder for the rest of my life.

The new director has so much on her plate (AG, TCEQ, fund raising, purchasing supplies, employee issues, bills, vet care, etc.) there is no way she can do every one's job.

Sadly, a second animal died this week, Joel, a marmoset was found dead in his enclosure which he shared with this mate. Cause of death was unknown for he was seen moving around in the morning, and by the evening hour he was dead. I do not have an individual picture of Joel, but from all accounts he was quite the character and very adorable.

So I close this blog with a these words --may Justice is found for Jake, may Peace be found for Joel, and may the Lord Judge those who fail in their duty to protect the sanctuary's animals. Jake went through so much since his arrival and he deserved better than he received. He was loved by many and he will never be forgotten. God Bless the animals' souls into Heaven, forever and ever -- Amen.

Toys for Animals

Where to begin? Okay, let's start with some good news. The sanctuary received its donated toys, blankets, and treats collected by county employees for the sanctuary animals' to be given out after Thanksgiving Day (Sunday event). For the first time, Bubba will receive a boomer ball. And T'Savo will also receive a boomer ball! Finally, toys for the animals whom are under constant medical care! Yea!

The wolves will receive small balls with a tug-a-war rope attached. The primates will receive lots of treat boxes and toys. The chimps will receive blankets and clothes to play with including several treat boxes and toys. And finally, the fox will receive a treat dispensing toy. The bears and the tigers will receive pumpkins to play with too. I wish I had more donated gifts for the animals, but considering the short turn around time, I think we did pretty good!

Over the weekend, I learned one of the board members may have resigned from the board due to a family medical situation. If true, that means there are only three board members left. I also learned the OAG just approved the candidacy of a new board member. I read his resume, and it looked great to me--I just pray he can provide the direction the board truly needs at this time.

The CPA that was supposed to meet the new director on Monday to go over the terrible 2008 990, failed to show up. One hour after the scheduled meeting time, he called the director to inform her that he was still out of town and would not return until Wednesday (day before Thanksgiving). So much for getting out a corrected return before the end of this week!

I also learned the board member whom attempted to take over the sanctuary is not happy I plan to visit the sanctuary next month (December). Gee I wonder why? It continually astounds me the lack of director or assistance the board provided the new director thus far. Perhaps they should be more worried about the 2008 990, dwindling finances, adding new board members to the Board of Directors, etc, than wondering what I plan to say when I go visit the animals, with the media in tow. I have done nothing but attempt to save the animals, and now they are worried I might say something that would close the facility down? Sounds like the former female director talking and not a rational board member, to me. I am very much aware the former female director poisoned the minds of the directors and the workers against me. One would think, after all that is coming out, that they would have realized by now who truly was the enemy of the sanctuary. And that enemy is NOT me. I guess old hatreds are hard to get over. Too bad, because I could have been their greatest ally. Instead I chose to help the new director, who has demonstrated a true desire to save the animals.

USDA Double Talk

A whole lot of double talk from the USDA.  Anyone surprised?  Not me.  

http://www.sacurrent.com/sanantonio/the-wao-files-the-usdas-dave-sacks-confirms-there-is-an-investigation-against-wao/Content?oid=2377601

The WAO Files: The USDA's Dave Sacks confirms there is an investigation against WAO 

By Enrique Lopetegui

elopetegui@sacurrent.com

“There is no case, there is no investigation,” former Wild Animal Orphanage attorney Eric Turton (and other Carol Asvestas supporters) repeatedly told the Current and anyone asking about the status of the WAO cases with the USDA.

Well, it seems that, after all, yes, there is (or was until very recently) an investigation going on, according to USDA spokesperson Dave Sacks.

But this phone conversation from October 2009 is not only about that, but about the animal laws (or lack of) in this country. Next time you hear, "There is no case against WAO," send him/her this link.

Did WAO ever show the USDA records of animal deaths?

I can give you some information, but my hands are tight, because this case is still open. So, as such, no government public affairs office isâ?¦

Ohâ?¦ The case is still open? Since when?

I believe January of 2007. An investigation is our formal way of officially documenting the facts surrounding allegations of Animal Welfare Act violation. A complaint, on the other hand, these are submitted by any individual at all, a regular citizen, animal rights worker, or what have you. They have a concern about an alleged violation and they contact us and, then, we take them all seriously across the board and we look at them that way. But an investigation is a formal way of documenting the facts surrounding allegations. A complaint is just the very first step where someone says, “Hey, there is something hereâ?¦ This looks like some alleged improper animal condition,” and that sort of thing. This investigationâ?¦ It was a result of our inspection findings rather than any complaint that came in, so we actuallyâ?¦

So there is an investigation?

Wellâ?¦ We did look into it formally. It was a result of our official fact checking and the process came after our inspection findings. So, when we conduct inspections and we see things that are not to our liking according to the Animal Welfare Act, then we canâ?¦ It's kind of a step-up to possible enforcement actions. You knowâ?¦ It can come from a complaint or our own inspections. In this case it was from our own findings.

Is that a yes? Is there is an investigation going on?

Correct.

An early agreement between the USDA and WAO included a monkey care violation. Why was that violation erased from the final agreement?

Again I don't have that information because I'm limited on what I can say and what information I can dig in my end of things. Again, I don't have that because the case is still open. I couldn'tâ?¦ Even if I had that information I wouldn't be able to comment on that until `the case` is completely closed. At which point a reporter, like yourself, or a member of the general public, can file a Freedom of Information Act request for all of the completed paper work and the all the documents related to the case.

Well, I didâ?¦ But I was surprised to find that I and get all kinds of personal information except, precisely, anything related with official WAO animal deaths. Why don't they make records of animal deaths public?

Just to give you some information regarding that: The Animal Welfare Act does not require license holders to notify us of every animal death. I meanâ?¦ You have to realize all the license holders that we inspect across the country, and all the animals that are involved, and all the zoos, and all the exhibitors, and all the circusesâ?¦ That's a lot of animals. So when we go in we are basically checking on the health and the well-being of the animals that are there on-site the days that we make our inspections. Nowâ?¦ A lot of the license holders self-report deaths to usâ?¦

So, if you kill them, it's OK?

I'm not saying it's OK. Weâ?¦ There are different ways we can find out about animal deaths. Sometimes, like I said, the license holder will self-report it to us and then we go in there and our inspectors will look to see, to their best of their knowledge, if the animal died of natural cause or that sort of thing. We can sometime find out through the press, that's happened before. We sometimes have been tipped-off by people within the facility itself. So you know, there are different ways we find out. The zoo keepers and the license holders keep their logs of animals that come in and leave their facilities. So, they keep records of things. But the Animal Welfare Act, which is what we enforce, that specific legislation does not required them to file with us of every single death. Now, if there is some alleged animal abuse or something like that, then you can bet we're going to go on there and take a look at things.

Do you know when the case will be completed?

The closest I can come to getting information about that for you is possibly in two weeks.

`After two weeks, he wrote me back saying that I should submit another FOIA request`

What good are the inspections if you don't have access to animal records?

Like I said, the AWA doesn't require license holders to submit to us animal deaths; some of them do, but they are not required. So, when our inspectors go into these facilities, you knowâ?¦ We're looking at the animals that are there, we're looking to see if they are being properly taking care of, if they're getting the nutrition they need, if they are protected from the elements of extreme weather, if they are separated from potentialâ?¦

What's the point of the Act then?

It's a numbers game. If you are an inspector and you're going into the San Antonio Zoo, sayâ?¦ And again, that's a lot of animals in thereâ?¦ That's a lot ofâ?¦ And the fact of the matter isâ?¦ You knowâ?¦ I meanâ?¦ The fact remains: Animals die. And you know, it's not something whereâ?¦

But when you don't have crystal-clear and public animal record, then you rely on independent studies, and one claims that 1,000 animals died in 10 years at WAO. That's 100 animals per year!

Again, they are not obliged to `reveal animal deaths` â?¦ But many of them do self-report. If you have a bat exhibit and you have 150 bats in there, wellâ?¦ Some of those bats are going to die just from natural causes and from competition and all that regular stuff, you knowâ?¦ It will take an enormous amount of time for an inspector to go in there and match those records. Now, what we do is we work with these license holders, we educate them. We don't come in there, it's not Us vs Them, so to speak. We work with them to try to pull them to full compliance with the AWA. We're not turning a blind eye to animal deaths; we're not turning a blind eye to animal mistreat, but it's justâ?¦ You knowâ?¦ That Act covers a wide range of things, it's does not specify `anything` about the animal deaths.

If 50 animals died a preventable death, what's the value of the inspection then?

If we go in there and we see that there is a lot less animals than there were `before`, that's going to raise some flags to our inspectors and they are going to look into the matter. They'll talk to the veterinarians in that facility, they'll talk with the license holders themselves.

Did you do that at WAO?

Like I said, that case is open so, you knowâ?¦ You can't ask me about that, I can't comment about that.

Bottom line is: A bunch of monkeys allegedly freeze to death, and nobody knows what happens and WAO gets slapped in the wristâ?¦

You keep saying “nobody knows.” It's going through the legal process right now. I think you'll see a much more clear picture once this case runs its course. We don't want to tamper on with an ongoing investigation, so we don't release any of that information until that case is officially closed.

Jump to comments

The Ups and Downs of a Crazy Week

The ups and downs of the continuing roller coaster ride now is shared with someone other than myself for a change!

The new director, in just one week, experienced a lot of highs and lows. To start off, the pseudo-sanctuary’s CPA for over 10 years, apparently did not want the new director to review the 2008 990 for more than 15 minutes prior to its mail time, else the document would be late to the IRS. So the director and its new CPA only had about 15 minutes to review and sign the document before it had to be taken to the post office.

When it was sent to me, after the fact for my opinion, I was shocked and dismayed. It was ½ completed and there was a lot of conflicting information on the return. It was absolutely terrible. To make matters worse, there were no schedules attached to the document which was sent to the IRS.

The sanctuary director called the CPA, who just happened to be out of town, for an explanation. After hearing her concerns, his only response was he made a mistake; he brought the “draft” to the sanctuary for signature and not the “original” document which should have been signed and sent to the IRS.

How can any legitimate CPA make such a mistake? He allegedly prepared the 990 with attachments, and he did not bother to take the time to make sure he brought the right forms to the sanctuary for the new director’s signature?

The so-called professional CPA was hired to produce a professional document which the board members rely upon to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge, and he let everyone down. Not only that, he did not have the 2008 financial statements prepared—allegedly claiming he would submit them at a later time! What??? How can you complete the 2008 990 without the financial statements?

Now the IRS will really go nuts over this return because the core information was simply left off. Granted, the CPA said he would go over the corrected copy with the new director next week, but sadly, it will be late—really late. And with the Thanksgiving Holiday week thrown in, mail time will further delay the amended document to the IRS.

I cannot imagine the OAG will be happy with this latest turn of events.

So, this was the first major challenge. Next was the director’s decision to speak with an employee, whom initially showed potential working at the facility, but for some reason, started taking advantage of the new director and staff, resulting in his decision to voluntary leave the facility yesterday. After sending the director a couple of heated emails after he resigned, a strange call was made to a local news station, claiming one of the sanctuary’s baboons was loose and someone should cover the story. Dubious, the news station called to verify whether or not the sanctuary was missing a baboon. The director contacted the animal care takers and they conducted an animal head count, confirming all primates were present and accounted for. This got me thinking, a legitimate call would have been made to law enforcement (i.e. police or sheriff) claiming the concerned citizen saw a monkey running around and was wondering if someone lost their pet, not to the one of the local media outlets. Interesting to note, that not many people know how to identify a particular type of non-human primate—especially if the animal is on the move and moving fast!

The week did have some positive results – the animal enrichment toys were delivered last and this week—thanks to the kind donations received from County employees! The sanctuary plans to hold an after-Thanksgiving event, where Bubba (white tiger), T’Savo (lioness), the wolf pups and wolf group, and monkeys will receive special treats! I’m so excited Bubba will finally receive his first-ever toy at the sanctuary! He really needs something fun to play with which will keep him physically active and mentally motivated. One of the local television stations said they would cover the event, assuming they are not short of cameramen to cover the event.

Also, one of our local radio stations plans to interview the new director for 30 minutes and air the program in December, one week before the Animals’ Christmas Party! This will be great exposure because it will be aired on three other radio stations at the same time.

Now, hold on to your hat, because the ride is going down again.

One of the former board members that left the sanctuary’s board of directors in protest when the former male pseudo-sanctuary director was fired (as the female former director thankfully quit and walked out of the board meeting) posted the most off-the-wall comments on the local newspaper’s comment section of the original on-line article.

Here are some snippets from his posted comments:

“It is remarkable how the fact that [new director] went after her own family is being down played. Any descent family member would stand by their parents not attack them. This shows that she has no loyalty other to herself. Sad but true. "I do it for the animals" that is the classic phrase she hides behind.”

Wow! This guy just doesn’t get it, does he?

“This is really the sad story of an upset daughter throwing a temper tantrum and hurting her parents to get self-satisfaction. It is really pathetic. Unfortunately the remaining board members at the [sanctuary] are not going to admit that they have made a mistake by believing [new director’s] accusations. The [pseudo-sanctuary] is what it is today thanks to [former pseudo-sanctuary directors], never forget that.”

I love the comments made by the next commenter:

“What concerns me greatly is [the former board member] reference to "loyalty." What of the loyalty to the animals that lived at the [sanctuary]? It appears [the former board member] was on the board for over a year and during that period, did he at any time look into the investigations conducted by the State and Federal offices, or did he rely on his "loyalty" to his friends, the [former pseudo-sanctuary directors], that everything would be “okay?” Did he ever file an Open Records request to obtain the documents on file with the government offices or did he abrogate his responsibilities to the animals? I would love to read his explanation in an upcoming article as to why he turned the other way and did not fulfill his responsibility as a board member to protect and defend the sanctuary’s animals.

What ever [new director’s] motivations, and least she understood the difference between right and wrong. Hypothetically, if someone is committing an illegal act, causing the deaths of many, do you just stand-by, or do you collect evidence to support your allegations and then go to the authorities? Or, do you just sit back and look the other way, and "hope" things will just get miraculously better?

It takes courage to stand up to one’s family in the face of serious transgressions made against the very ones the [sanctuary] was supposed to protect and defend [the former board member] never made any reference to what HE DID to protect the animals, what investigative action he took in light of the serious allegations made against the [former pseudo-sanctuary directors], to ensure the funds and the animals were protected. His failure to act as a “legitimate” board member leads one to believe he was an active participant in the “Animal Wrongs” committed at this sanctuary. Shame on you, [former board member]. Shame on you. Like Anonymous wrote on 11-10-09, “Learn the truth before speaking out.””

The former board member truly displays his ignorance in the next thread he posted after the newspaper editor requests the former board member contact him so he can interview him for a follow-up story. The former board member’s response to the writer?

“We can communicate through this thread for now, if you do not mind.”

What a coward! It appears he was afraid to answer some really tough questions regarding his actions (more like in actions) when it came to protecting the sanctuary’s animals! Instead of explaining what he did during the investigative process to protect the animals and the incoming donations, he purposely choose to side stepped the issue and attacked the new director, claiming he never saw any wrong doings at the pseudo-sanctuary during his time he was on the board for approximately 2 1/2 years. He also had the audacity to claim all but one of the investigations by federal or state agencies were closed. Yikes! Either he is totally delusional, a crazed liar, or just simply uninformed. Why chose? I go with all three choices!

The newspaper writer asked numerous times for the former board member to call him and set up an appointment to discuss this case on the record. Needless to say, the former board member refused and instead chose to use this comment forum as an opportunity to bash the sanctuary's board of director members and the new director. In frustration, the magazine writer wrote:

"I'm not going to debate with you here. This is the last time I write to you about this. This is a forum for readers. If you have something to show me, show your face and show me what you got, and we'll talk for as long as you want, and I'll record and publish every single word of it. I'm not the one trying to avoid anything.

So far, no response from the former board member. Buc...Buc...Buc...bucacccck!

The Weakest Link

I learned not too long ago, one of the sanctuary employees was let go. This particular person was the first employee to break ranks and contact me regarding past issues at the sanctuary, while it was still under control by the pseudo-sanctuary directors.

While I was under no illusion as to why the former employee contacted me, I have to admit I am profoundly disappointed she did not embrace the opportunity to help the animals after everything they had been through much, much sooner.

I have always known this person was the weakest link at the pseudo-sanctuary. Her past actions at another Texas sanctuary demonstrated she was only willing to speak out on behalf of the animals when her job was on the line. I knew once the former pseudo-directors saw my blog postings as well as the local on-line newspaper reports, the former pseudo-sanctuary directors would wonder if this employee was the source of leaked information. I also knew that if they confronted her, she would deny the allegations, but in defense, start keeping notes on what the former directors were doing, so the information could be used against them in the future if they tried to fire her.

Sure enough, the pseudo-sanctuary directors suspected her of releasing “confidential” information; the employee immediately started collecting information; and then on that fateful day, I received my phone call from her, asking for help right before the pseudo-directors fired her.

While I understand the need for self preservation, I do not understand why these employees allowed themselves to be used by the former pseudo-sanctuary directors—and for what? Money? Two animal caretakers held their tongues during the course of the investigation, even though they could have been the key in resolving the situation years ago. So many animal lives could have been saved if they only spoke up sooner. Instead, they kept their silence for fear of losing their jobs and their home. Apparently in their eyes, the animals’ deaths were “acceptable losses.”

It is my understanding the employee that was let go will be allowed to visit the animals and staff—that this was strictly a business decision, not a personal one. I know the workers get attached to certain animals, so I’m sure the former employee must be relieved she can visit the animals again in the future once things settle down.

I just pray the remaining animal care staff have the animals’ health and welfare at heart and decide to speak up for the animals.

Sigh.

Drugs, Alcohol, and Suicides -- Where are the "Happy" Rescuers

The follow exerts are from Animal People's article titled Unusual Histories Are Almost the Norm Among Exotic Animal Keepers (date written unknown)

"Enthusiasts of exotic and dangerous animals are almost by definition unusual people--and that poses one of the perennial complications of the sanctuary dilemma.

Many and perhaps most sanctuarians became involved with dangerous and exotic animals through breeding, trafficking, exhibiting, and/or performing with them. They may obtain nonprofit status, and may actually do a significant amount of animal rescuing between continuing previous activities under the name of a sanctuary, yet even then may contribute more to the proliferation of dangerous and exotic wildlife in private hands than to containing it.

Some people calling themselves sanctuarians still breed and sell animals, some still admit unescorted members of the public to their facilities just as roadside zoos would, some continue to exhibit animals on tour, and some continue to perform with animals, all of which are contrary to the philosophies of The Association of Sanctuaries and the American Sanctuary Association.

Several of the most prominent were performers, including Pat Derby of the Performing Animal Welfare Society and Tippi Hedren of the Shambala Sanctuary. Others were exotic petkeepers with breeding ambitions, like [former female director of pseudo-sanctuary] a.k.a. the [exotic wild animal sanctuary]., who changed their directions and outlooks upon becoming aware of the surplus of exotic and dangerous animals, and the miserable fates of many of them.

The ex-performers and breeders are often the strongest voices in opposition to compromise. Both Derby and [former pseudo-sanctuary directors], in conversations with ANIMAL PEOPLE nearly eight years apart, likened keeping exotic and dangerous animals for exploited purposes to drug addiction. "

Wow! The very last line, "...likened keeping exotic and dangerous animals for exploited purposes to drug addiction" really hit the nail on the head. I've been told over the last few years that some members of the Asvestas family used illegal drugs for a long time. For years I wondered where all the sanctuary's money went -- guess it's not too much of a stretch to guess where it all went after all -- either up in smoke or up someone's nose.

I have been amazed to learn over the years how many "rescuers" and "sanctuarians" abuse alcohol and drugs. Talk about a deadly combination -- drugs, alcohol, and exotic wild animals. The next startling thing I learned is the high number of suicides involving animal rescuers. I grew up believing animal rescuers were happy and prosperous people--after all, they were following their heart's desire. The investigation into this case revealed just the opposite. Don't get me wrong, there are incredibly strong and ethically bound animal rescuers out there -- it's just this case revealed to me a different side I did not expect--a side I'm willing to bet no one has investigated or certainly reported.

Why do people exploit the elderly, children and animals? Because there is money in it and because there are people out there that have no conscious, no moral center. Is this taught from generation to generation or is this a learned behavior? Who knows. All I know is that people are willing to exploit others for a quick buck and the ones that suffer are the ones that get in their way. So, those individuals that "used to breed" animals--did they quit because they felt ethically bound to quit the breeding business, or did they quit because there was more money in a non-profit business? You decide.

No Information is Better than Misinformation

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people can be when commenting on this story.

Another case in point –

I recently received an email from a person interested in my comments regarding an email she received from Animal People Magazine. The Editor, apparently responding to her query about the story written in a local magazine, wrote “…an impressive effort to gather & publish information, by a reporter who has relatively brief background, but I see some mistakes and omissions –“ This of course, coming from someone who probably never took the time to interview people regarding this case (like myself); this coming from a person who probably never submitted a Public Information Request from the Texas OAG or TCEQ; and no doubt, a FOIA request was probably never submitted. For if this “editor” submitted the records requests, he would never have written the following:

“First of all, [local magazine writer] used several critical sources whose credibility is dubious, in view of their own histories and the failure of past investigations to sustain their allegations. Some of these sources had significant conflicts of interest. I wasted a lot of time chasing their claims several years ago, & found nothing worth print space. The older allegations, from questionable sources, really should be viewed separately from the more recent allegations, from sources of much stronger credibility.”

Hmmm, do I fall under the “dubious” sources or do I fall under “sources of much stronger credibility”? I guess this could go either way, depending on whether or not he is in “tight” with the former sanctuary directors.

What this “editor” does not know is that the former directors hired people with “dubious” backgrounds for the very reason listed above – they lack credibility. Why else would a high number of young people or individuals with criminal records be hired by the former directors? It certainly was not because they brought in ‘years of experience’ into the workplace! Also, if the “editor” performed any ‘investigative’ work into this story, he would have learned allegations made in the early 2000’s were seen once again in 2005 to mid-2009.

Next paragraph (gggrrr):

“Second, [director of another local sanctuary] is a person of very strong credibility, and I find no fault in her comments. Nonetheless, it is significant and should have been mentioned, if [she] was to be used as a source, that [the former female director] was a former volunteer (and possibly an employee) of [the other local sanctuary], who went on to found [pseudo sanctuary] after splitting with [her] and making allegations against her that are similar to some of the allegations others later made against [the former directors]. Whether [she] fired [the former directors], or [the former directors] resigned, the history between the two of them has not been friendly.”

What in tar nation does this have anything to do with the current case? The former directors also worked for another animal “sanctuary” in Texas, and its not mentioned in the story either. If the editor bothered to call the other sanctuary director to find out what role the former female director played in her organization, then he may have learned for himself why she was distancing herself from the former directors—and with good reason too!

Third “point”:

“Third, the time frame of everything is important. [Oldest daughter of the former directors] grew up at [the pseudo-sanctuary], and was instrumental in operating it, right from the beginning. She gave me a tour of the original [pseudo-sanctuary] site in December 1994, & appeared to be much older than she actually was, in part because of her depth of knowledge of the animals and the details of the operation. Until [she] left in 2005, claims of malfeasance against [pseudo-sanctuary] were sporadic and not of a pattern.”

Okay, are you kidding me? The eldest daughter was a young teenager at the time he was given “a tour” of the sanctuary. She did not become aware of what her parents were truly doing to the animals and where the money was really going until 2009. Bless her heart, she really has her hands full today trying to clean up the mess her parents made of the sanctuary.

And now for the icing on the cake:

“[The pseudo-sanctuary] got very high marks from the late [board member], among others, who was involved with all of the sanctuaries in the San Antonio area, until her death in 2006. [The former board member] was one of the best investigators the humane field ever had, and if anything was really wrong then, she would have red-flagged it.

Things fell apart after [the older daughter] left, including between her parents.

Now that she is back, and in charge, in hindsight it seems apparent to me that she had a much bigger role in making everything work than anyone really realized before, & that probably no one could be better qualified to put [sanctuary] back together.”


How little he knew what was happening at the pseudo-sanctuary. The former board member was indeed aware of what was happening at the pseudo-sanctuary for several years prior to my investigation into the sanctuary. We spoke privately why she never spoke out on behalf of the animals when she SAW what was happening to them, and in respect for her memory, plus I made a promise to her not to disclose her reasoning [a promise made, a promise kept] I will not disclose her thoughts.

All those who were involved, who knew what happened to the animals, will forever have to live with their duplicity and guilt, assuming of course, these persons have a conscious to begin with – sadly, most individuals remained silent because either they were threatened into silence (and I have a lot of letters, written by the pseudo-sanctuary’s former attorney threatening legal action against said persons unless they kept silent) or they simply benefited financially some how from the arrangement.

Things “fell apart” well over 10 years ago; the former directors simply were never caught. Now that the truth is coming out, people are falling all over themselves justifying why they never investigated this case. Unless one goes through all the records filed with the State and Federal agencies, he/she really should reserve commenting on past information and/or events. No information is much better than misinformation!

Oh, and I should mention Animal People is “the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative [emphasis placed by me] coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992.”

Local Reporter Covers Sanctuary's Past

Yesterday, a local magazine reporter wrote an in-depth article about the sanctuary and its former directors. This is the first, and may I say, the best story written in regards to the drama that has taken place at the sanctuary for the last 10 years.


The writer obviously spent a lot of time on the article – and there’s no doubt he did his ‘homework’ because he interviewed a lot of individuals and included quotes from his Texas Public Information requests. I sure hope this story gets some play because it needs to be told – people need to know what happened at the sanctuary, to ensure something like this never, ever happens again.


The on-line version of the article includes the best photographs taken of the animals I have ever seen. In a way, it was great to “see” the animals again close-up. I miss them terribly, but I know they are in good hands now.


I heard yesterday Bubba received straw and his run-off area was enclosed so as to protect him from the cold. The temperature at night is slowly dipping into the 40’s so it is time to start winterizing the enclosures.


I am very pleased the new director was able to obtain 140 bales of straw for just $2 a bale. Due to the drought, the cost of hay skyrocketed to $8 per bale, so needless to see I am also happy to hear the animals received quality hay for less money. Now all the tiger enclosures will have straw this year!


Additional good news – the water is back on! I guess the former directors reconsidered and decided to leave the water on for the animals. It’s not like they were paying anything out of pocket, so turning off the water was just pure evil spite.


And can you believe it—according to the article, the former directors indicated they were willing to come back to protect all their “hard work’ in the event the WAO elect not to ‘pony-up’ the dough to pay them off. Yeah, right. The former directors apparently made overtures to the sanctuary, hoping to resolve the lawsuit out of court for cash. I guess they are running out of money since their unemployment insurance request was denied for cause. Considering how much money I believe they scammed from the sanctuary, I think their request is ludicrous! They owe the animals money—not the other way around! Thankfully, their overtures were declined and the lawsuit is still on – this case could take years, so I wonder how long the former directors can continue with this frivolous lawsuit.


Oh, and I would be remiss not to mention that the former sanctuary attorney filed a lawsuit against the animals for “wages owed.” Can you believe it! It was clear he was working for the former directors, and his office partner now represents the couple in a lawsuit against the animals. This is obviously a clear conflict of interest.


So ending on a happy note, the sanctuary’s web site is really coming along – I cannot get over all the changes and it’s great to see some of the animals from the second property.


And today, I got to hear T'savo gruffing and breathing over the phone. She sounds so happy now – what a tremendous difference—near death under the former management and gruffing with joy under new management. She and others like her are the true miracle.

Later:

Here is the article (https://www.sacurrent.com/sanantonio/animal-wrongs/Content?oid=2287146):

 Animal Wrongs

Missing animals and unexplained deaths dethrone ‘The Lyin’ Queen’
By Enrique Lopetegui

On July 10, a white Bengal tiger named Vi Vi died at the Wildlife Animal Orphanage, a sanctuary for retired research primates, discarded big-game pets, and an assortment of other castoffs located in Northwest Bexar County. Less than a year old, she had arrived at the orphanage in February from the Rio Grande Valley to some minor media fanfare, during which WAO’s veterinarian reported that “Vi Vi appears to be in good health.”

Then, just a few months later, she was gone. Vi Vi was hardly the first animal to die at the Orphanage under curious circumstances, but the public hadn’t been paying close attention — with the exception of R.G. Griffing, infamous editor and publisher of SA’s answer to the Drudge Report: the headline-driven, hard-right, smash-and-grab website the San Antonio Lightning. Fueled by inside information and word of U.S. Department of Agriculture and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality investigations, for the past two years Griffing had carried on a one-man campaign against the WAO and Ron and Carol Asvestas, the couple who founded the sanctuary in 1983 and continued to run it. A few 2007 headlines:

“Were Bexar County Pit Bulls Buried Alive?”

“The 90 Pig Mystery: Orphaned Animals Vanishing?”
And the title with real sticking power:

“The Tale of the Lyin’ Queen: Wildlife Orphanage Animals Vanishing At An Alarming Rate; Charitable Donations, Too”

When Griffing received word of Vi Vi’s death, he hit the keyboard again, reporting that at least 13 WAO animals, most of them big cats, had died in the past 12 months, and coining a new irresistible epithet: Animal Auschwitz.

The Asvestases retaliated almost immediately by filing a defamation suit against Griffing and the Lightning that blames his reporting for a drop in fundraising revenue. When the Current and local TV stations picked up on the story, Carol Asvestas called a press conference, and promised to provide death certificates for Vi Vi and other recently deceased big cats. At the conference, WAO veterinarian Loretta Ehrlund reported that Vi Vi died of “Status Seizure by undefined encephalomyelitis/meningitis condition,” and blamed malnutrition caused by poor feeding under her previous owner. “It wasn’t something that shows up easily on any kind of physical exam,” Ehrlund said. “She was diagnosed post-mortem. It’s sad, but it was a learning situation and, looking in retrospect, there was nothing we could do about it.”

But Asvestas refused to release the promised death records, and ironically, the lawsuit and press conference, intended to muzzle Griffing and win public sympathy, was responsible in part for the Asvestases’ subsequent downfall. Carol Asvestas’s inability or unwillingness to answer persistent questions about WAO’s animal-welfare record and growing discontent among WAO’s staff forced the board to take action early this fall.

On September 28, board members voted to suspend Ron and Carol Asvestas without pay, and selected 28-year-old daughter Nicole Asvestas-García (“García, please,” she says), who had been working at the sanctuary full-time since February, to replace them. Following an incident in which Ron and Carol were accused of trying to remove computers from the WAO offices, they were terminated.

The Asvestases didn’t take long to respond to their ousting: On October 15, they sued their own daughter and the rest of WAO’s board, alleging that the board acted without proper authority when it suspended and then fired them. It reads like reality TV — a fitting conflict in WAO’s world of noble dreams backed by generous donors, but marred by family conflict, mysterious animal deaths, and allegations of misappropriated funds.

A trail of dead and missing animals

In 1987, Ron and Carol Asvestas bought 10 acres of land outside Loop 1604 and developed seven of them for the nonprofit sanctuary, which has two facilities: a larger one on Talley Road that houses quarantined animals, and the main offices and sanctuary on Leslie Road, which is open to the public for scheduled tours. At WAO’s peak, the two locations housed at least 500 animals. WAO currently keeps 70 at Leslie Road and approximately 240 at the Talley facility. The animals — mostly tigers, lions, monkeys, birds, and bears — come from laboratories, zoos, and private owners who, for a variety of reasons, can’t continue to house or care for the animals.

In the past three years, the USDA has inspected WAO at least nine times. As late as July 1, 2009, a USDA report stated that “the floors at both the walk-in cooler and the freezer are very dirty … There is fresh blood on the freezer floor” and “old bags of discarded bread are stored in the cooler.” Other reports record packages of meat for the animals left open to possible contamination, and recommend that “enclosures for non-human primates must be designed and constructed so that they are structurally sound for the species … housed in them.”

Even these red flags, not readily visible to the public, might have stayed under the radar had Vi Vi’s unexpected death been a rare occurrence. But the tiger’s abrupt end was only one in a growing list of complaints and citations against the facility that stretches back at least a decade.


In 1999, the USDA charged WAO with numerous violations of the Welfare Animal Act for its role in the death of three big cats it acquired and transported from the Spokane, Washington, zoo in 1996. Upon their arrival at WAO, two tigers and a cougar were dead. The USDA reported that among the violations committed by the WAO were a failure to ventilate the too-small containers and to provide veterinary care for the animals.

“At no time did I feel the crates used were too small as to cause the deaths of the animals, even though they were slightly cramped,” said Carol Asvestas in a 1997 affidavit. At the time, she told the Express-News that she considered the charges “ridiculous” but didn’t want to fight the $12,000 fine and a 90-day suspension of her exhibitor’s license in court.

Sometime between 1999-2001, at least 98 pigs adopted by WAO “disappeared within a few months after their arrival at WAO,” according to Jeannette Ferro, who volunteered to find a home for the pigs after a sheriff confiscated the animals in Louisiana. WAO claims to have kept the pigs for about a year, but Ferro suspects Carol Asvestas “took money from me for them, even after she no longer had them.”

In October 2003, WAO adopted two tigers from the Austin Zoo. The animals were sedated by the zoo and then transported to San Antonio. The male didn’t survive the trip. “A veterinarian did not examine the cats at any time after arriving at WAO,” reported Robert M. Gibbens, director of USDA’s Western Region Animal Care, in a June 3, 2004, email. “WAO reportedly checked on the cats at 1 a.m. The male was still completely sedated; no signs of recovery. A vet was not contacted at that time. When WAO checked on the tigers at 3 a.m., the male was dead.

“According to [USDA big cat specialist] Laurie Gage, failure to check on a tiger for several hours while it remains under sedation is clear negligence,” Gibbens added. The case was settled with a $750 fine.

In the summer of 2005, according to USDA records, WAO Vice President and Treasurer Kristina Brunner noticed that a nine-month-old lion cub named Rex had gone missing shortly after he was featured on the Animal Planet’s Growing Up Lion. Brunner claimed Asvestas told her the cub was fine, but Brunner didn’t buy it. “I met up with [former animal caretaker] Mr. [Brandon] Prill and asked him outright: ‘Rex is dead, isn’t he?’ [He] told me that he was not allowed to discuss Rex, but he did concede Rex had passed away.” Brunner said that she eventually learned from animal caretakers Mary and Michelle Reininger that Rex had “died a long time ago. … He was found in the enclosure being dragged around by a tiger cub.” A 2006 USDA report attributed Rex’s death to his being housed with incompatible exotic cats.

In November 2005, the USDA fined WAO for conducting tours at an unlicensed facility and for housing “non human primates that were not acclimated to the temperature and humidity during winter months in outdoor facilities.” A year later, at least five monkeys died between January 12 and January 19, 2007, four of them on January 18, during a week when the average low temperature dipped below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2009, the USDA and WAO settled the November 2005 case after the USDA agreed to drop the complaint about the monkeys’ housing and WAO promised use the $5,000 in potential fines to make improvements to its fencing.

On September 18, 2006, the TCEQ sent Carol Asvestas a Notice of Violation for a Municipal Solid Waste Complaint Investigation at WAO’s Talley Road facility. The notice states that on July 25 of that year, WAO representatives “showed the investigator the location of two covered pits that contained dead animals.”

“We understood that deceased animals and waste could be buried on the acres of property under the condition that it be buried deep enough that it could not easily be dug up,” said the Asvestases in an email sent by attorney Tammy Click. “They were buried after digging a hole with the back hoe. Subsequently we learned that the dead animals were to be disposed of in the landfill, so we changed this practice. Frankly we still believe that burying the animals ourselves would be preferable to dumping them in the trash. However, we abide by the instructions given by the TCEQ.”

Clear as mud

As alarming as those incidents are, they may not tell the whole tale. WAO’s poor record-keeping makes it hard to determine exactly how many animals have died at the sanctuary and why.

“We do [keep a record of animal deaths],” Carol Asvestas told the Current in August. “We have a whole cabinet full of death certificates.”

But WAO veterinarian Ehrlund tells a different story.

“[The Asvestases] weren’t keeping a whole lot of records … and it made it difficult for us to keep track,” Ehrlund said. “It was just in the last year or so that they began asking for death certificates. The monkeys are especially tough to keep track of, because there are so many of them.”

After the board appointed Nicole García to take her parents’ place, García showed the Current WAO’s files. In very few cases is there a complete animal history. The files record only 32 animal deaths: one in ’98, six in 2006, nine in 2007, five in 2008, nine in 2009, and two on an unknown date.

“This is all we have now,” García said. “We’re trying to match it with our own count, but it’s going to take us a while.”

Figures compiled by García since she took over the operation put the animal death toll from 2003-2006 at 101. Former WAO VP Brunner believes that more than 1,110 animals died in a 10-year period, including at least 81 in 18 months beginning in January 2008. In contrast, 20-25 animals have died to date this year — approximately the same number as last year — at Wildlife Rehabilitation & Rescue, a model sanctuary in Kendalia.

In an email to the Current, WRR founder Lynn Cuny said that it is important to note the condition the deceased animals arrived in before drawing conclusions about their care.

“If a sanctuary is involved in a rescue of 10 bears who were poorly fed and poorly treated, under constant stress and held in filthy confinement, and those bears are all over the age of 15, then you could reasonably expect to have one, two, or even perhaps five deaths from this group in the coming five to 10 years,” she said. “Occasionally an animal who is rescued from substandard conditions will die within several months of being rescued.”

WAO’s missing paper trail also makes it almost impossible to sort fact from fiction in Carol Asvestas’s many documented and alleged explanations.

Take those missing potbellied pigs.

“Because of the flood in 2002, specific individual records for these particular pigs were not available,” wrote board President Sumner Matthes to Assistant Attorney General Jim Anthony on June 11, 2006. “Originally we had agreed to take only 30 pigs but ended up with 98 [and] had to build a temporary fenced area for them.” The pigs, according to Matthes, were in WAO’s care “for approximately one year.”

“At that point, the pigs were relocated to an individual who had done labor work for us, and he, in turn, kept some of the pigs and gave some of the pigs to members of his family who had sufficient fenced land to allow the pigs to roam.”

“None of [the pigs] were put to sleep,” wrote Carol Asvestas in a May 2004 email to WAO board members and staff. “All were placed with colleagues and board members that had land and were capable of taking care of them. I kept a few and they roam the 102 acres at Talley.”

But WAO documents suggest Carol asked a hunter to cover for her. In a March 26, 2009, letter addressed to Asvestas at her request, Leon Asbury wrote that “Several years ago I adopted 100 plus potbellied pigs from the Wild Animal Orphanage and placed them on our family farm.”

Mr. Asbury could not be reached for comment, but the Current spoke with his wife.

“Yes, we adopted the pigs, but the pigs are on different places in East and South Texas,” Wendy Asbury said. The Current asked her whether she would know if any of those pigs had been slaughtered. She was horrified.

“What? They don’t raise them for food. We don’t do cruelty. We’re animal lovers, not animal haters.” Asbury recalled that a woman had called her husband shortly after they adopted the pigs to ask whether she could see the animals. “He was out hunting or doing deer blind, I don’t know … ” Mrs. Asbury said. “But I told her we didn’t have the pigs.”

Carol Asvestas reportedly played a similar shell game with Rex, the cub who was killed by other cats at WAO. In a USDA affidavit dated October 10, 2006, she confirmed that Rex was killed by a cage mate, but in a February 2009 email she told donor Charlotte Kiffer that Rex had died “due to internal problems.” According to Brunner, when Brunner asked the Reiningers why Asvestas had told her Rex was still alive in 2005 after he died, the caretakers told Brunner that Asvestas didn’t want original owner Gloria Frasher to know Rex had passed away.

“So I asked what Ms. Asvestas would do if Gloria showed up and wanted to see Rex,” Brunner reported. “I was told by the Reiningers that Ms. Asvestas would try to pass off Leo as Rex.”

Monkey business

Brunner’s experience with Rex fed a growing suspicion that WAO was playing fast and loose with the animals for a reason.

According to WAO’s 2006 minutes, the newsletters the organization regularly sent out to potential donors “produce $3,000-$9,000 a day, enough to cover WAO’s expenses.” In November 2006, Laurie Rusell, an animal lover in LaFayette, California, received one of the 200,000-500,000 newsletters sent three or four times a year by WAO. The newsletter stated that WAO was “currently caring for 350 Hurricane Katrina Animal Orphans.”

“As we continue this rescue mission, these numbers will grow dramatically” read the newsletter. “We need your help today.”

But according to a detailed timeline prepared by Brunner for the Texas Attorney General’s office, by the time the November 2006 newsletter went out, most of the 280 or so Katrina animals that were housed at WAO in December 2005 had died or been transferred to other facilities.

“[Carol] also killed the [tiger] male ‘Rajah’ … claiming he was old and she needed the cages,” said John Fury, a former employee, in a statement from a 2003 civil suit in which a private tiger owner tried to prevent the relocation of 24 tigers to WAO. The allegation is denied by the Asvestases, but it echoes one of the main criticisms voiced by WAO’s detractors: that Carol euthanized animals in order to make room for new animals and ask for more donations, in a cycle of rescues and euthanizations.

“I firmly believe that if the San Antonio Lightning had not reported the death of the tiger, the WAO would not have announced the death of Vi Vi on its internet site,” wrote Brunner in an August 14, 2009, email to the Attorney General and the USDA. ” … the Asvestases undoubtedly realized that if the newsletters went out without some sort of disclaimer, it would appear that the WAO was once again fundraising for a dead animal.”

Questionable fundraising tactics are only one of the money-related allegations levelled at the Asvestases. According to statements and documents provided to the court by Fury and another former WAO employee, the Asvestases routinely engaged in the practice of bogus “petty cash” transactions: They would write a check in an employee’s name, the employee would cash it and return the money to the Asvestases.

“[In May 2002] Ron Asvestas used company money to purchase a swimming pool and deck materials for their home,” former employee Lilac Alfke told the court during the 2003 civil suit. “He also used their nonprofit status to obtain these items tax exempt. Materials were purchased on company credit cards (Lowe’s and others) and totaled well over $4,000 on deck materials alone.”

Behind closed doors

Despite ongoing investigations by the Texas Attorney General’s office, the USDA, and the TCEQ, WAO and the Asvestases continued to operate as if everything was normal. A look at WAO’s 990 forms show that the Orphanage reported donations of $1.4 million in 2005, $1.7 million in 2006, and $1.2 million in 2007. In early 2007, in the middle of yet another USDA investigation, the board voted to raise the Asvestases’ annual salaries to $100,000 apiece.

But behind closed doors, the Asvestases’ safety net had begun to unravel. On January 7, 2006, Vice President Brunner called an emergency board meeting to discuss alleged misappropriation of funds and animal-welfare violations. She made a motion “to stop all animal rescues, exotic and domestic, for two years until all quarantined animals are enclosed in large, natural areas.”

“I totally disagree with that,” Carol told Matthes, who was on the phone from Florida. “If I’m going to be director of this organization I am not going to have one board member dictating to me what I can or can’t do.”

“Quarantined animals must have new enclosures built immediately,” continued Brunner. “WAO will not temporarily house or ship animals to other locations. In those very rare instances where [that is needed], it will only be done with the express permission of all board director officers and the veterinarians.”

But the board sided with Carol, and at the end of the meeting, Brunner submitted her resignation. She had been with WAO for 11 years, and quickly turned her frustration and experience with the organization into a full-blown whistleblower campaign, which resulted in the investigation of many of the complaints logged above.

Yet as late as this spring, it looked like WAO might escape any severe repercussions. WAO lawyer Eric Turton had lobbied aggressively on his clients’ behalf, and in early to mid 2009, the USDA sent WAO two settlement agreements. The first one included two violations, for giving tours at the unlicensed Talley Road facility and for housing primates in inadequate facilities. The second version of the agreement only included the first violation, and was the one that prevailed.

WAO’s board was ecstatic.

“Yeah!!!!” wrote board member Michelle Cryer on June 22.

“This is definitely a win-win! Great, great job, you guys!!!” wrote Karen Maxfield.

“Sumner [Matthes] is pleased with the outcome and I am pleased with the outcome,” wrote Carol Asvestas. “As it stands, Eric [Turton] did one heck of a job making sure that no violations regarding animal care was in the document. … Finally this is one saga in this never-ending ordeal we can put behind us.”

Brunner was livid.

“Sadly, by removing [the reported primate-housing violation] from the original Settlement Agreement … you have condoned the ASUS/WAO’s willful negligence and violation of the Animal Welfare Act, whereas numerous primates lost their lives in a cruel, yet preventable manner,” Brunner wrote in an email to USDA and the Attorney General’s office. “With over 81 animal deaths reported (not including domestic and hoof stock animals) from January 2008-May 2009, I cannot understand why this facility is allowed to continue to operate.”

All bark, no bite

“Texas is clearly one of those states that don’t do a whole lot to protect animals that live here,” said WRR’s Cuny. According to the Animal Legal and Historical Center, accidental or negligent actions cannot be prosecuted under the state’s cruelty statutes, because the laws are very narrow in scope. Reporting requirements are similarly lax, a fact that WAO’s attorneys used to the organization’s advantage. When the TCEQ repeatedly requested a summary of animal deaths, causes, and places of disposal, WAO’s lawyer refused to comply.

“As we just discussed,” wrote Bill Aleshire, who was representing WAO at the time, in an email to the TCEQ dated November 3, 2006, “please provide me, or have your legal department provide me, the specific statutory authority under which the TCEQ would receive medical records concerning deceased animals at the WAO.” Earlier, Aleshire claimed that WAO was refusing to provide the records because the sanctuary had been “besieged by crazed fanatics who wish to sensationalize any matter they can to hurt our clients.”

Click, who currently represents WAO, distances herself from the Asvestases’ previous lawyers, telling the Current that “The TCEQ and Attorney General’s office and others have repeatedly stated that during our term with the WAO they received cooperation from us all on occasions,” without specifying how exactly they have cooperated.

“The Animal Welfare Act does not require license holders to notify us of every animal death,” said Dave Sacks, spokesperson for USDA. “Again, I’m not going to address [whether the USDA got animal death records from WAO] while the case is open. I think you’ll see a much more clear picture once this case runs its course.”

Following the 2009 USDA settlement, former board member Brunner accused investigators of letting WAO give them the runaround by acceding to WAO’s request that they be notified in advance of visits to the Talley Road facility.

“I am profoundly disappointed,” Brunner wrote in an email to USDA and the Attorney General’s office. “I cannot understand how you can allow the ASUS/WAO to dictate to your agency as to where and when inspectors can report to investigate alleged animal welfare violations or even just conduct a routine inspection.”

Even as Brunner grew increasingly frustrated with federal and state attempts to investigate WAO, dissatisfaction was building within the organization. A study of internal emails suggests that Matthes, who lives in Florida, remained the voice of reason in an increasingly dysfunctional organization, but he tended to go with the flow and accept what Carol Asvestas told him. But early this fall, employees tired of complaining to Carol and seeing no improvement — “We went without produce for the animals for three weeks in August,” one employee told the Current — decided to go straight to the board, and Matthes, following dozens of emails and phone calls, sided with them.

“In the last few months we’ve gotten complaints from the employees we got in the operations down there,” Matthes told the Current in September. “And it was time, probably the best time, to take some positive actions to try to get this situation straightened out, and I think we’ve been successful in doing that.”

In mid-October, Matthes expanded on his growing frustration with the Asvestases: “I’ve worked with them for 13 years, and we were asking for things that were not provided to us. We were asking for financial data; it did not get to us. A 600-page document that the Attorney General presented to them concerning the allegations and we were never able to determine who had it. There’s been a series of things over a considerable period of time that I think the board has tried their best to work with Carol and Ron Asvestas, but it hasn’t been satisfactory.”

Cloudy with a chance of lawsuits

Carol Asvestas, a British national, claims to have a “nursing” background, but it’s been hard to document. When the Current asked for her animal-related training, experience, and academic background, lawyer Click sent a generic response.

“The WAO was and is Carol’s passion,” Click wrote in an email. “Carol and Ron built the WAO over a period of approximately 30 years from a dream into refuge for approximately 500 animals; from Carol’s own donations into a refuge that requires a budget in excess of one million dollars.”

The Asvestases never received their $100,000 salaries, said Click, “and, frankly, any promised salary would not compensate for all the years when they worked for nothing and only put money and effort into the WAO.”

Based on figures provided by Click and a study of tax returns, the Asvestases weren’t paid from 1981-95, and from 1996-2008 they received an average of $71,000 each. Their total average, counting the years in which they didn’t get paid, is a yearly $34,601 apiece. A search in Charity Navigator show that CEOs in similar local and national charities earn from $36,000 to $65,000 per year.

“Carol and Ron are not perfect,” wrote Click. “No one is. And, like everyone else, they learned as they worked along but they did the work. They built the WAO with assistance from many, many people, but none worked longer or harder than they did. But it is the old story; no one will appreciate what they did until they are gone.”

The list of demands in the Asvestases lawsuit against WAO and García don’t necessarily include control of the wildlife sanctuary. The Asvestases, who filed for divorce in 2008, ask the court for “immediate” payment of $264,764 for “reimbursements, salaries and vacation pay,” and “the return of 7+ acres, upon payment of $20,000 plus interest” and the return of “personal items” still at WAO’s office.

“The WAO is an organization that has rules that govern its activities,” wrote the Asvestases via Click. “If … it is determined by the directors that it is in the best interest of the WAO that we be dismissed, then we want the money and property owed and we wish them the best. If the WAO cannot meet its obligations then we would consider returning to make sure our lives’ work is not put in jeopardy.”

No matter who takes charge of the WAO’s future, major changes need to be made.

“You cannot have a true sanctuary and just be open to the public at the public’s whim,” said Cuny. “That is the goal of a legitimate sanctuary: to try to get back for these animals some semblance of what life would be if humans had not … screwed them up, for lack of a more eloquent term.”

Cuny, who met with García at WRR shortly after the shake-up at WAO, is willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

“I think Nicole means well,” said Cuny. “Whether she will have a chance to do it or not, and the backing, and the knowledge, and the experience … I don’t have the answer to that.”

Matthes says he believes the Orphanage is back on track, but is worried that the not-so-distant past could thwart their progress.

“Everybody, the employees and the board of directors at the Orphanage, seemed to be very upbeat at this point,” he said. “I would hate to see some lawsuit destroy what we have accomplished in the last two weeks.

“I have heard nothing but positive things on Nicole since she’s taken over the operations as CEO. There are a number of problems that she’s having personally with her family, but as far as the operation of the Wildlife Animal Orphanage, I think it has improved tremendously since she’s taken over the job.”

García is pledging openness and accountability with the media and, most importantly, donors.

“I can’t determine [why the animals died at WAO in the past],” she told the Current. “But I can say this: One of our lions, Sabu, wasn’t doing very well. But the minute we changed the meat that they were being fed, she’s energetic and all over the place and eating everything. My goal is to be transparent immediately, and, as soon as we rebuild, spend most of our donations into direct animal care, instead of unnecessary administrative costs.” If she is worried about her parents’ lawsuit, she doesn’t let on.

“Here we are. I’m ready. This is not about me, or them — it’s about the animals.”

http://calendar.sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=70665

Thank you very much Enrique for writing this story and many thanks to the Current for publishing this story!