I didn't see any of his five cage mates, so I am praying they are okay.
I miss Max...
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Maximus is Still at Talley Road
I found these pictures of Maximus (Max) on Michelle Cryer's website today:
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Former WAO Stumptailed Macaque Named Juvy Passed Away
Sad news to report from Mindy's Memory:
One of our stumptail macaques, Juvvy, came to us in October 2010 with three others from Texas. Juvvy collapsed and died Thursday am. The necropsy report showed she died of a massive liver tumor, and one on her heart.The vet states it is was a miracle she made it as long as she did. A beautiful monkey with a sad past.
In 1998, Juvy was sent to the WAO along with the University of Wisconsin troop. She was relocated to Mindy's Memory in October 2010 along with Pike, Madonna, and Solo.
In 1998, Juvy was sent to the WAO along with the University of Wisconsin troop. She was relocated to Mindy's Memory in October 2010 along with Pike, Madonna, and Solo.
 |
| God Bless Juvy's Soul in Heaven |
From the director of Mindy's Memory on Facebook:
Mindys Memory Linda Barcklay
Juvvy received the best food she had ever had in her life time. All fresh produce of every type. She loved bananas, and spinach was her favorite green.The photo clicked on to enlarge, shows her clearer.We loved her.... 9 hours ago
Mindys Memory Linda Barcklay
I deal with so much saddness--- it is difficult. I miss her. She was loved. Best we could all do for her in the short time she blessed us with her presence.Only glad I cannot see the future when bringing these animals in to the sanctuary. 9 hours ago ·
Friday, February 25, 2011
I Was Asked to Stand Down
Now this was an interesting turn of events. Lynn already knows how I feel about both Bills as I've blind copied her (along with many other interested parties) in my outgoing emails to the Committee members.
From: Lynn Cuny
To: Kristina Brunner
Cc: Dainon Steiner
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 1:22:51 PM
Subject: Meeting in Dallas/Confidential
Kristina,
I have copied Dainon Steiner here, he is WRR Director of Outreach and attended the meeting this morning.
It is very important that no action be taken on this bill. We are asking everyone to sit tight and not send out any emails re the killing of this bill while the work is done to modify the language.
We are aware of the current language but there needs to be a calming of the waters while this work is done. If and when there is a change re the status of the wording, we will be prompt in contacting you and bringing you up to speed on what would be appropriate action at that time.
Dainon, please feel free to add your comments if I have left anything out or if I have misstated anything.
Kristine, if you need to talk to me, you can call me on my cell. I am out of town and will return on Thursday of next week.
My cell is 210 843 4424.
Thanks for understanding,
Lynn
I guess she doesn't want me to rock the boat any further. Right now I have no plans on sending out another email to the "recreational" committee. However, I always reserve the right to contact my representatives if I believe a Bill is bad for Texas and its animals. So I responded to Lynn that I looked forward to seeing the modified Bill.
Now I wait...
Much later:
Still waiting....
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Things We Do For Our Four-Legged Furry Friends!
If you share your home with cats, then you can probably related to the following video:
I am always reminded of the saying: "Dogs have owners, cats have servants."
WAO Operated Illegally in the State of Texas?
For the life of me, I could not figure out why a second Bill was introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Lyle Larson. Then I learned there was a connection between the added Bill and Primarily Primates Inc.
Okay, now back to the connection. Primarily Primates has been continually critized by PETA as evidenced by this article posted in the Houston Animal Shelters Examiner a few days ago:
By Bett Sundermeyer, Houston Animal Shelters ExaminerFebruary 21st, 2011 7:27 pm CT
As I have written previously, I am no fan of PeTA i.e. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Their fight against life saving No Kill efforts is both mindboggling and infuriating. In the past, PeTA has even taken time out of their busy killing schedule to attack and oppose No Kill efforts in Houston.
As background, in 2008, Houstonians began demanding No Kill reform in Houston’s city funded shelter BARC. We were astonished when PeTA, a self proclaimed “animal rights” organization, began attacking our efforts (scroll down to "No kill shelters are no good") and attacked Nathan Winograd see Winograd’s response here.)
At that time, No Kill Houston was a new and small organization, so we reached out to the national “humane” organizations and asked for help in combating PeTA’s killing agenda in Houston. The only national organization that responded to my requests for help, besides Nathan Winograd of the national No Kill Advocacy Center, was Priscilla Feral, President of Friends of Animals and Primarily Primates sanctuary in San Antonio.*
During one of our conversations, Priscilla told me a very disturbing story regarding PeTA and the Houston SPCA. In light of the questionable raids of late and the Houston SPCA’s refusal to make a commitment to life saving, this story seems particularly pertinent.
On October 13, 2006, before Friends of Animals took over the Primarily Primates sanctuary, PeTA caused the Texas Attorney General to raid the sanctuary. PeTa had collected allegations from a former disgruntled employee and a volunteer with a vendetta. Both had made connections with PeTA and allowed them onto the sanctuary’s property. They schemed to shoot videos to cast the sanctuary in the worst possible light and then turned it over to the Attorney General.
Granted, there were weakness at the sanctuary since the founder and director at that time was in trouble with alcohol. But, PeTA's goal was not to help the sanctuary or the animals. No, instead they wanted to dismantle the sanctuary. Once dismantled they could force the sale of the valuable land and they already had several buyers lined up, ready to cash in.
A judge in Austin appointed a receiver for the sanctuary that had been recommended by PeTA. Before Priscilla could hire attorneys in Austin, that receiver was installed along with a large group of PeTA employees and volunteers. Priscilla remembers that they were “a deplorable mess of incompetent people -- directed by a receiver intent on shutting the sanctuary down to follow PeTA's agenda.”
The receiver later admitted to the sending away, and to the deaths, of 336 sanctuary residents. Two hundred of those animals had been rounded up and trucked 200 miles to the Houston SPCA during the first week that the receiver arrived. This included dogs, guinea hens, Canadian geese, several ponies, a 27-year-old horse, chickens and more. “It was a stroke of evil.”
Friends of Animals wrote, faxed and telephoned the Houston SPCA to ask about the confiscated animals, but the Houston SPCA was not cooperative. Feral says that "the Houston SPCA treated Friends of Animals as though we were criminals.”
Priscilla further laments “I am sure the Houston SPCA killed all of the confiscated animals as fast as possible. It breaks my heart to think of the killing and how heartless they were. The horse... how could a horse grazing on the property be dispatched to the flipping Houston SPCA -- a kill center that answers to no one. And the chickens, free-roaming birds … every peacock they could catch. What hope did they have? Our several feral cats escaped these goons and so did male peacocks.”
In late April 2007, the Texas Attorney General dismissed all allegations against the sanctuary and asked Priscilla to head up the Board of Primarily Primates. A settlement was fashioned much to PeTA's chagrin. But it was too late for the 336 victims of the PeTA/Houston SPCA “raid”. Two hundred animals had been captured and taken away, never to be seen again. The Houston SPCA never responded to requests regarding their fate, so we have to assume that they are dead. The other 136 animals disappeared - many of them dead as well.
PeTA
For several years, it has puzzled me why animals that were seized in a San Antonio sanctuary were shipped 200 miles to the Houston SPCA, a high kill shelter. San Antonio has shelters and so do many other cities much closer than Houston. I never doubted this story, but the circumstances have always puzzled me.
I recently ran across some information that sheds more light on the situation and bonds the Houston SPCA and PeTA together more tightly.
It seems that Houston SPCA director, Patty Mercer and PeTa director, Ingrid Newkirk are both on the board of Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals. (Also note that Houston Humane Society director, Sherry Ferguson, is also a board member.)
So, it would appear that Newkirk and Mercer have bonded and joined together to carry out raids which ultimately cause the deaths of many of the unlucky animals involved. And why wouldn’t they be buddies? After all, they both run high kill “shelters".
In light of the questionable raids, and the ghastly outcomes for many of the animals, the PeTA - Houston SPCA connection is a very disturbing connection indeed.
**********************************************************************************
* To help Primarily Primates continue with their life saving work, please sponsor a Chipanzee at the sanctuary.
* To help the No Kill Advocacy Center continue their national fight for No Kill shelter reform, please donate generously.
**********************************************************************************
If you would like to learn how every shelter, including the Houston SPCA and PeTA, can transform themselves into No Kill shelters, please join us at our Building a No Kill Community workshop. Learn how we can stop the killing in our nation's shelters.
Stay up to date on No Kill sheltering issues by subscribing to No Kill Houston's e-newsletter.
To receive an email notice each time I post a new article on Examiner.com, click the “Subscribe” button at the top of this page.
Become a fan of No Kill Houston and No Kill Texas on Facebook.
Follow No Kill Houston on Twitter.
You can read more about PeTA's attacks on Primarily Primates here:
* Wallace Swett of Primarily Primates Denounces PETA's Continuing Attacks on Primarily Primates
* Cumulative cost of PETA-funded lawsuits against Primarily Primates may reach $1 million
* Will the animals at Primarily Primates survive PETA’s single-minded determination to destroy this sanctuary along with the lives of hundreds of abused animals who want only peace and refuge?
* PeTA: End your lawsuit against PRIMARILY PRIMATES!
* Help stop the assault on Primarily Primates
Continue reading on Examiner.com: The deadly PeTA - Houston SPCA connection - Houston animal shelters
Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-houston/the-peta-houston-spca-connection?render=print#print#ixzz1Eteqs235
_______________________________________________________
Whew! Now let's look at the following Facebook entry made by Priscilla Feral yesterday:
But before I go into this story, please read the following letter I sent yesterday to the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism Committee regarding both HB 251 and 1546:
Okay, now back to the connection. Primarily Primates has been continually critized by PETA as evidenced by this article posted in the Houston Animal Shelters Examiner a few days ago:
The deadly PeTA - Houston SPCA connection
 |
| Lemurs at Primarily Primates sanctuary Photo: Primarily Primates |
As I have written previously, I am no fan of PeTA i.e. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Their fight against life saving No Kill efforts is both mindboggling and infuriating. In the past, PeTA has even taken time out of their busy killing schedule to attack and oppose No Kill efforts in Houston.
As background, in 2008, Houstonians began demanding No Kill reform in Houston’s city funded shelter BARC. We were astonished when PeTA, a self proclaimed “animal rights” organization, began attacking our efforts (scroll down to "No kill shelters are no good") and attacked Nathan Winograd see Winograd’s response here.)
At that time, No Kill Houston was a new and small organization, so we reached out to the national “humane” organizations and asked for help in combating PeTA’s killing agenda in Houston. The only national organization that responded to my requests for help, besides Nathan Winograd of the national No Kill Advocacy Center, was Priscilla Feral, President of Friends of Animals and Primarily Primates sanctuary in San Antonio.*
During one of our conversations, Priscilla told me a very disturbing story regarding PeTA and the Houston SPCA. In light of the questionable raids of late and the Houston SPCA’s refusal to make a commitment to life saving, this story seems particularly pertinent.
On October 13, 2006, before Friends of Animals took over the Primarily Primates sanctuary, PeTA caused the Texas Attorney General to raid the sanctuary. PeTa had collected allegations from a former disgruntled employee and a volunteer with a vendetta. Both had made connections with PeTA and allowed them onto the sanctuary’s property. They schemed to shoot videos to cast the sanctuary in the worst possible light and then turned it over to the Attorney General.
Granted, there were weakness at the sanctuary since the founder and director at that time was in trouble with alcohol. But, PeTA's goal was not to help the sanctuary or the animals. No, instead they wanted to dismantle the sanctuary. Once dismantled they could force the sale of the valuable land and they already had several buyers lined up, ready to cash in.
A judge in Austin appointed a receiver for the sanctuary that had been recommended by PeTA. Before Priscilla could hire attorneys in Austin, that receiver was installed along with a large group of PeTA employees and volunteers. Priscilla remembers that they were “a deplorable mess of incompetent people -- directed by a receiver intent on shutting the sanctuary down to follow PeTA's agenda.”
The receiver later admitted to the sending away, and to the deaths, of 336 sanctuary residents. Two hundred of those animals had been rounded up and trucked 200 miles to the Houston SPCA during the first week that the receiver arrived. This included dogs, guinea hens, Canadian geese, several ponies, a 27-year-old horse, chickens and more. “It was a stroke of evil.”
Friends of Animals wrote, faxed and telephoned the Houston SPCA to ask about the confiscated animals, but the Houston SPCA was not cooperative. Feral says that "the Houston SPCA treated Friends of Animals as though we were criminals.”
Priscilla further laments “I am sure the Houston SPCA killed all of the confiscated animals as fast as possible. It breaks my heart to think of the killing and how heartless they were. The horse... how could a horse grazing on the property be dispatched to the flipping Houston SPCA -- a kill center that answers to no one. And the chickens, free-roaming birds … every peacock they could catch. What hope did they have? Our several feral cats escaped these goons and so did male peacocks.”
In late April 2007, the Texas Attorney General dismissed all allegations against the sanctuary and asked Priscilla to head up the Board of Primarily Primates. A settlement was fashioned much to PeTA's chagrin. But it was too late for the 336 victims of the PeTA/Houston SPCA “raid”. Two hundred animals had been captured and taken away, never to be seen again. The Houston SPCA never responded to requests regarding their fate, so we have to assume that they are dead. The other 136 animals disappeared - many of them dead as well.
PeTA
For several years, it has puzzled me why animals that were seized in a San Antonio sanctuary were shipped 200 miles to the Houston SPCA, a high kill shelter. San Antonio has shelters and so do many other cities much closer than Houston. I never doubted this story, but the circumstances have always puzzled me.
I recently ran across some information that sheds more light on the situation and bonds the Houston SPCA and PeTA together more tightly.
It seems that Houston SPCA director, Patty Mercer and PeTa director, Ingrid Newkirk are both on the board of Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals. (Also note that Houston Humane Society director, Sherry Ferguson, is also a board member.)
So, it would appear that Newkirk and Mercer have bonded and joined together to carry out raids which ultimately cause the deaths of many of the unlucky animals involved. And why wouldn’t they be buddies? After all, they both run high kill “shelters".
In light of the questionable raids, and the ghastly outcomes for many of the animals, the PeTA - Houston SPCA connection is a very disturbing connection indeed.
**********************************************************************************
* To help Primarily Primates continue with their life saving work, please sponsor a Chipanzee at the sanctuary.
* To help the No Kill Advocacy Center continue their national fight for No Kill shelter reform, please donate generously.
**********************************************************************************
If you would like to learn how every shelter, including the Houston SPCA and PeTA, can transform themselves into No Kill shelters, please join us at our Building a No Kill Community workshop. Learn how we can stop the killing in our nation's shelters.
Stay up to date on No Kill sheltering issues by subscribing to No Kill Houston's e-newsletter.
To receive an email notice each time I post a new article on Examiner.com, click the “Subscribe” button at the top of this page.
Become a fan of No Kill Houston and No Kill Texas on Facebook.
Follow No Kill Houston on Twitter.
You can read more about PeTA's attacks on Primarily Primates here:
* Wallace Swett of Primarily Primates Denounces PETA's Continuing Attacks on Primarily Primates
* Cumulative cost of PETA-funded lawsuits against Primarily Primates may reach $1 million
* Will the animals at Primarily Primates survive PETA’s single-minded determination to destroy this sanctuary along with the lives of hundreds of abused animals who want only peace and refuge?
* PeTA: End your lawsuit against PRIMARILY PRIMATES!
* Help stop the assault on Primarily Primates
Continue reading on Examiner.com: The deadly PeTA - Houston SPCA connection - Houston animal shelters
Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-houston/the-peta-houston-spca-connection?render=print#print#ixzz1Eteqs235
_______________________________________________________
Whew! Now let's look at the following Facebook entry made by Priscilla Feral yesterday:
Apparently, PeTA's assault of Primarily Primates is never-ending, as a bill is proposed in the Texas legislature to criminalize animal shelters, humane societies, and vets for caring for injured, infirm, orphaned, and abandoned animals called "Dangerous Wild Animals" --listed there as chimpanzees, baboons and wild cats. Am hoping all... Tx. activists can work together to defeat this bill that attempts to legislate som
While I completely understand PPI's desire to kill HB 251 and push forward HB 1546, (PPI is a member of ASA), seeing how they had to fend off a lawsuit to shut the sanctuary down due to questions regarding whether or not the sanctuary actually met HB 1362 Dangerous Wild Animal Bill's operating exemptions, I don't think the sanctuary was acting in the best interest of all Texas animals living in sanctuaries (as noted in my letter to the Committee).
Clearly, PPI wants to stop any more lawsuits filed against its facility for allegedly operating illegally in Texas, hence their push for HB 1546. Unfortunately, as I stated my in letter, this Bill is not good for all sanctuaries operating in Texas and therefore, must be defeated too.
I am so thankful now that PETA never got involved in the WAO case since I learned the WAO never met the HB 1362 exemptions either! Since the approval of HB 1362, the WAO operated illegally in the state of Texas, which now in hind sight, explains why the first WAO attorney wanted the WAO to complete and submit paperwork for a shelter license back in 2007!
Slowly, all the pieces of the WAO tragic story is now coming together. I just pray that if a Bill is passed, it will be for the betterment for all Texas animals.
WAO Bankruptcy Financial Report for January 2011
There are a several interesting items noted in this financial report made to the Western District Bankruptcy Report:
Bankruptcy Court Financial Report for January 2011
Bankruptcy Court Financial Report for January 2011
The first obvious issue that stands out is the fact the Cryer still has not prepared the 2009 990 (organization's tax return which was due to the IRS by May 15, 2010), even though Cryer reported to the court that a return would be forthcoming soon. This makes me wonder if the Cryers plan to prepare and submit to the IRS the 2010 990 [wink wink].
And the WAO animals are still cared for by "I refuse to tell the truth to USDA/APHIS investigators" Mary & Michelle Reininger, along with "I can run the WAO better than anyone else" Kelsey Dyer and Mike Dereadt. Then there is "I let the cougar escape" Henry Newman taking care of construction issues and "I'm not sure what I'm doing in the office" Kimberly Myer handling the financial leger and reports.
In reviewing Kimberly Myers' work as it relates to the "January Bills Paid for January 2011," I noticed she failed to include a gas payment made to Valero in the amount of $40 in the report. Hmm... Was this another alcoholic "fuel" payment for the workes that she did not want others to see?
This month's "gas" receipts totaled over $670! Wow!! Where in the world are they driving the two trucks? Could they, perhaps, be used for personal reasons? And the workers are still buying "office supplies" from Walgreens. What a waste of money. Why can't the workers buy office supplies from Walmart at the time they are allegedly purchasing animal feed (cat food for the 50 or so feral cats)?
I was saddened to see that there was no purchase made for fruits or vegetables this month from River City Produce. Last month there was a small purchase for produce from River City Produce, but nothing at all for Janaury 2011. Now maybe they are getting donated produce from some place??? Sadly however, based on the photos posted in January 2011 from Cryer's Facebook page, it appears the chimps are only getting a steady diet of monkey chow with very little or no produce at all. That also means the 120+ monks are also receiving a steady diet of monkey chow. Heartbreaking.
What really STOOD OUT was the fact that the very same people responsible for the WAO situation (right along with the WAO's 2006-2010 board of directors) actually received Christmas Bonuses!!
Six employees received "bonuses" at $75 per person. Four employees cashed their bonus checks in December 2010, and two employees cashed their bonus checks in January 2011. No wonder there was no break down of expenditures in the December 2010 report -- after all, it's just not good business practice to announce that bonuses were distributed to the "employees"while the non-profit corporation is in bankruptcy court! Again this month, the focus appears to be on the WAO employees and not the animals.
So, let's flash back to a comment Michelle Cryer made to the San Antonio Current back in May 2010, when the Cryers crowed over the fact they "sacked" Nicole Garcia and then took control of the WAO books: "They were doing things backwards," said Cryer, "people came first and animals second."
Five words: Christmas Bonuses. No produce purchased.
Enough said.
And the WAO animals are still cared for by "I refuse to tell the truth to USDA/APHIS investigators" Mary & Michelle Reininger, along with "I can run the WAO better than anyone else" Kelsey Dyer and Mike Dereadt. Then there is "I let the cougar escape" Henry Newman taking care of construction issues and "I'm not sure what I'm doing in the office" Kimberly Myer handling the financial leger and reports.
In reviewing Kimberly Myers' work as it relates to the "January Bills Paid for January 2011," I noticed she failed to include a gas payment made to Valero in the amount of $40 in the report. Hmm... Was this another alcoholic "fuel" payment for the workes that she did not want others to see?
This month's "gas" receipts totaled over $670! Wow!! Where in the world are they driving the two trucks? Could they, perhaps, be used for personal reasons? And the workers are still buying "office supplies" from Walgreens. What a waste of money. Why can't the workers buy office supplies from Walmart at the time they are allegedly purchasing animal feed (cat food for the 50 or so feral cats)?
I was saddened to see that there was no purchase made for fruits or vegetables this month from River City Produce. Last month there was a small purchase for produce from River City Produce, but nothing at all for Janaury 2011. Now maybe they are getting donated produce from some place??? Sadly however, based on the photos posted in January 2011 from Cryer's Facebook page, it appears the chimps are only getting a steady diet of monkey chow with very little or no produce at all. That also means the 120+ monks are also receiving a steady diet of monkey chow. Heartbreaking.
What really STOOD OUT was the fact that the very same people responsible for the WAO situation (right along with the WAO's 2006-2010 board of directors) actually received Christmas Bonuses!!
 |
| Michelle Anthony-Cryer Mona cracks me up!! It looks like a poor person selling bread on the corner . .February 21 via Facebook for iPhone |
Five words: Christmas Bonuses. No produce purchased.
Enough said.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Two Bad Bills Introduced in the Texas House Regarding Animal Sanctuaries!
So much has happened in the last few days, that I must take the time to memoralize my thoughts.
Just when I thought things could not get worse for the WAO animals, I read an email from a person whom thought I should know that the WAO animals living in Texas may be in great danger.
From: Robert Henneke
Date: February 18, 2011
To: Lesley French Henneke
Subject: HB251
I thought you'd find the attached bill by Rep. Hilderbran of interest.
Rob
Here is my letter to my State Representative:
From: Kristina Brunner
To: jose.menendez@house.state.tx.us
Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 11:02:24 AM
Subject: HB 251
Dear Representative Jose Menendez:
I would urge you to vote NO on HB 251, authored and filed by Rep. Hilderbrand on Feb. 18, 2011.
As it is, Sec. 821 and Sec. 822 of the Health and Safety Code contain provisionsthat are unconstitutional, void of due process, and conflicting with other statutes -including Government Code and Rules of Civil Procedure. The amendments proposed by this Bill would only serve to make it more confusing, more arbitrary, and more onerous.
As an example, this Bill proposes to eliminate Sec. 822.102(a)(5), removing the exemption for veterinarians, humane societies, animal shelters, and those who hold rehabilitation permits from the Department of Parks and Wildlife. As a result, all these people (including wild animal sanctuaries), if they own or harbor any “dangerous wild animals,” as defined in Sec. 822.101, would be subject to registration requirements -the fee for which this Bill raises tenfold ($50 raised to $500)- even if the animal is only being cared for temporarily.
At the same time, it leaves intact the provisions of Sec. 822.102(a)(8), allowing any college or university to keep any number of “wild and dangerous” animals as mascots, with absolutely no restrictions.
Indeed, This Bill would also require a “wild and dangerous” animal to be kept five or more miles from any church, day care, or school. Yet apparently next-door to a hospital or nursing home is fine. Since a college is a school, this means that an owner must keep their animals five miles away from the very place that is allowed to have the same animals roaming free!
Should the application for registration be denied or revoked for whatever reason, this Bill proposes no hope of appeal or review. The denial or revocation is final. Then the animals may be seized and in all probability, destroyed.
Finally, the requirement for $100,000 of liability insurance is replaced with wording that essentially gives the Commissioner carte blanche to set whatever level of insurance he wishes, and owners would have no choice but to purchase that amount, no matter how safe their facilities may be.
In the great State of Texas, there are over 300 USDA exhibitor licensed facilities, whereas most of these facilities are non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations caring for thousands of displaced or abused exotic wild animals. The Bill’s unintentioned outcomes would be the destruction of these animals (to include tigers, lions, cougars, bobcats, servals, caracals, bears, wolves, non-human primates, chimpanzees, etc.) and the elimination of hundreds of jobs throughout our State. If this Bill passes “as is,” the public outcry when these animals are eventually destroyed will be overwhelming, as no reasonable person would ever condone killing these majestic animals for political reasons.
This Bill is not good for Texas.
For these reasons, I again urge you to please, vote NO on HB 251.
I also welcome a discussion regarding the current HB 1362, Dangerous Wild Animal, as it pertains to wild animal sanctuaries, since I have intimate knowledge as to how a wild animal sanctuary should lawfully operate in Texas.
Sincerely,
Kristina M. Brunner
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
San Antonio, Texas
(210) XXX-xxxx
And now, if you can believe this - the Bill has gone to Committee -- the House Committee on Culture, Recreation & Tourism, of all things! What, animals are now "recreational devices?" This Bill is a nightmare...not entertainment!
Here are the Texas Culture, Recreation & Tourism Committee members:
Chair: Rep. Ryan GuillenI've enlisted the help of several people to get the word out that this Bill will kill animals, not save them. I pray this Bill dies before it makes it to the floor for a vote.
Vice Chair: Rep. Gary Elkins
Members: Rep. Joe Deshotel
Rep. Dawnna Dukes
Rep. Tracy O. King
Rep. John Kuempel
Rep. Lyle Larson
Rep. Walter "Four" Price
Rep. Todd Smith
Then surprise, surprise, there's another bill on the same subject introduced by a former Bexar County Commissioner, Lyle Larson:
What is IFAW and GFAS' opinion of the bills?
--- On Tue, 2/22/11, Jessica.Anderson @ > wrote:
From: Patty Finch [mailto:patty@sanctuaryfederation.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:43 PM
To: 'Amy Kerwin'; 'A'Brunzo, Gail'; 'Robinson, Ian'
Subject: RE: a concern - HB251
Thanks Amy, the main people working on the bill want an exception made, but only for GFAS accredited or verified facilities, which would be a good thing. Several of us are working on it, including our Board President, thanks!
Patty
From: Robinson, Ian [mailto:irobinson@ifaw.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:47 PM
To: Patty Finch; Amy Kerwin; A'Brunzo, Gail
Subject: RE: a concern - HB251
Also it will only apply to new applications after the bill passes in September – so we need to get a move on…
I hate animal politics. The animals always lose in the end.
Later:
I decided to write each committee member on the Texas Culture, Recreation & Tourism Committee, to let them know that this is truly a bad bill all around:
From: Kristina BrunnerTo: Ryan.Guillen@house.state.tx.us; Gary.Elkins@house.state.tx.us; Joe.Deshotel@house.state.tx.us; Dawnna.Dukes@house.state.tx.us; Tracy.King@house.state.tx.us; John.Kuempel@house.state.tx.us; Lyle.Larson@house.state.tx.us; Walter.Price@house.state.tx.us; Todd.Smith@house.state.tx.usSent: Wed, February 23, 2011 9:58:03 AMSubject: Vote NO on HB 251 and HB 1546
Texas House of RepresentativesHouse Committee of Culture, Recreation & TourismAustin, Texas 78711
Rep. Ryan Guillen (Chair)Rep. Gary Elkins (Vice Chair)Rep. Joe DeshotelRep. Dawnna DukesRep. Tracy O. KingRep. John KuempelRep. Lyle LarsonRep. Walter “Four” PriceRep. Todd Smith
February 23, 2011
Dear Honorable Committee Representatives:
I would urge you to vote NO on HB 251 authored and filed by Rep. Hilderbrand on Feb. 18, 2011, and HB 1546 authored and filed by Lyle Larson on Feb. 21, 2011.
HB 251
As it is, Sec. 821 and Sec. 822 of the Health and Safety Code contain provisions that are unconstitutional, void of due process, and conflicting with other statutes -including Government Code and Rules of Civil Procedure. The amendments proposed by this Bill would only serve to make it more confusing, more arbitrary, and more onerous.
As an example, this Bill proposes to eliminate Sec. 822.102(a)(5), removing the exemption for veterinarians, humane societies, animal shelters, and those who hold rehabilitation permits from the Department of Parks and Wildlife. As a result, all these people (including wild animal sanctuaries), if they own or harbor any “dangerous wild animals,” as defined in Sec. 822.101, would be subject to registration requirements -the fee for which this Bill raises tenfold ($50 raised to $500)- even if the animal is only being cared for temporarily.
At the same time, it leaves intact the provisions of Sec. 822.102(a)(8), allowing any college or university to keep any number of “wild and dangerous” animals as mascots, with absolutely no restrictions.
Indeed, This Bill would also require a “wild and dangerous” animal to be kept five or more miles from any church, day care, or school. Yet apparently next-door to a hospital or nursing home is fine. Since a college is a school, this means that an owner must keep their animals five miles away from the very place that is allowed to have the same animals roaming free!
Should the application for registration be denied or revoked for whatever reason, this Bill proposes no hope of appeal or review. The denial or revocation is final. Then the animals may be seized and in all probability, destroyed.
Finally, the requirement for $100,000 of liability insurance is replaced with wording that essentially gives the Commissioner carte blanche to set whatever level of insurance he wishes, and owners would have no choice but to purchase that amount, no matter how safe their facilities may be.
HB 1546
The proposed Bill has one significant change to the original Dangerous Wild Animal Bill (HB 1362):
an organization that is an accredited member of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the American Sanctuary Association, or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries;
At this time, ASA and GFAS are non-profit sanctuary accreditation institutions which have a number of non-profit sanctuaries under their organization. In order for a sanctuary to be accredited, an application must be completed; an inspection of the applicant must be conducted by the accrediting institution; and/or a fee must be submitted and accepted by the accrediting organization. Today, joining ASA or GFAS is voluntary.
As HB 1362 stands, wild animal sanctuaries are not exempted from the Dangerous Wild Animal Bill unless it is an incorporated humane society, or animal shelter, or if a person holds a rehabilitation permit issued under Subchapter C, Chapter 43, Parks and Wildlife Code.
Unfortunately, when this Bill was written, it did not include 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit animal sanctuaries, and therefore, many sanctuaries are currently operating illegally in the State of Texas. Rather than include non-profit animal sanctuaries as part of HB 1546’s exemption list, the Bill states only ASA or GFAS approved sanctuaries may be exempted from the mandates set forth in this Bill. That means, membership with ASA or GFAS will no longer be voluntary, but rather, mandatory in order to operate a non-profit 501 (c)(3) animal sanctuary in the state of Texas:
I am not aware of any law that mandates that a non-profit corporation must belong to or is accredited by another non-profit corporation.
Therefore, what remedy will the House put in place in the event that a:a. Non-profit animal sanctuary does not want to join ASA or GFAS, if made mandatory to join, either because the non-profit corporation does not want be a part of a political animal organization (which may or may not represent their political views) or cannot afford the yearly membership or inspection fees;
b. The sanctuary cannot meet the accreditation standards set forth by ASA or GFAS;
c. An accreditation sanctuary fails to meet any additional standards imposed on the sanctuary by either ASA or GFAS at some future date;
d. A sanctuary, that meets accreditation standards for both ASA and GFAS, but both accrediting organizations choose NOT to accredit the facility due to political or personal reasons;
e. ASA or GFAS no longer want to accredit sanctuaries in the State of Texas; and/or
f. New accreditation non-profit organization would like to compete against ASA and/or GFAS in Texas—would the House Bill be modified once again to include the new accredited organization?If the issues raised above are not addressed in HB 1546, then many sanctuaries will be forced to operate illegally in Texas—once more. Therefore, what governmental body will be directly responsible for seizing and destroying exotic wild animals residing “illegally” in various wild animal sanctuaries throughout this State?
In Texas, there are over 300 USDA exhibitor licensed facilities alone, not including various non-USDA regulated animal sanctuaries (classified by the IRS as exempted non-profit 501(c)(3)) which currently cares for thousands of displaced or abused exotic wild animals. These Bills’ unintentional outcomes would ultimately be the destruction of innocent animals (to include tigers, lions, cougars, bobcats, servals, caracals, bears, wolves, non-human primates, chimpanzees, etc.) and the possible elimination of jobs throughout our State.
These Bills are not good for Texas or its animals.For these reasons outlined above, I again urge you to please, vote NO on HB 251 and HB 1546. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kristina M. BrunnerxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSan Antonio, Texas 78251(210) xxx-xxxxx
My polite response:From: Ryan Guillen Ryan.Guillen@house.state.tx.us
To: Kristina Brunner
Sent: Sun, February 27, 2011 11:19:36 PM
Subject: RE: Vote NO on HB 251 and HB 1546
Kristina,
Thank you for the e-mail. Please know that your input and concerns are very important to me.
I greatly appreciate you bringing this concern of yours to my attention. Please be assured that I will look at HB 251 and HB 1546 carefully in committee and take into consideration your stance on the issues.
Please don’t hesitate to call on me if I can be of further assistance.
Yours in Public Service,
Ryan Guillen
Texas State Representative
From: Kristina Brunner
To: Ryan Guillen Ryan.Guillen@house.state.tx.us
Sent: Mon, February 28, 2011 6:50:25 PM
Subject: Re: Vote NO on HB 251 and HB 1546
Dear Representative Guillen:
I thank you for your thoughtful consideration as you discuss HB 251 and HB 1546 with your fellow Representatives.
I would like to add one additional comment if I may. Instead of crafting new legislation that may be detrimental to existing sanctuaries and its animals, may I suggest this State uphold current laws regulating nonprofit charities and animal care? Pressure should be brought to bear on certain State and Federal agencies whose fiduciary responsibility is to protect the public from misappropriation of funds, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and stronger enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
I make this suggestion, as there are hundreds of exhibitors and non-USDA licensed facilities in Texas that rely on charitable contributions to fund their organizations. Like any other business operating in this great State, there are those individuals seeking opportunities to mislead the public regarding their charities' operations—essentially defrauding citizens out of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year by nefarious sanctuary owners/board directors and failing to provide proper care of their animals, potentially putting our communities at risk from animal escapes or attacks.
Case in point – The Wild Animal Orphanage (WAO) Investigation in San Antonio, Texas:
Five years ago, the Texas Office of Attorney General (Charitable Trust Division) was provided with a tremendous amount of evidence proving several WAO board of directors were directly responsible for, or had direct knowledge of, misappropriation of charitable funds; defrauding the general public via newsletter appeals and claims made on its website; falsifying WAO tax returns (IRS Form 990s); falsifying employee W-2s; misclassification of “contract workers;” personal use of WAO vehicles, equipment, tools, and supplies by directors and their family members; inappropriate use of County community service restitution workers, and so forth.
According to WAO internal documents, the Attorney General Assistant, James Anthony, consciously elected NOT to pursue this case as the attorney believed he had “more important” cases to deal with and believed this “animal case” did not rise to the level of prosecution. Never mind that during the last five years, over 70 document exotic wild animal deaths took place at the WAO due to, what I believe, was a lack of veterinarian care, improper diets, and the destruction of healthy animals, so as to free up “cage space” for new arrivals. The WAO made tens of thousands of dollars annually by taking in animals for cash ($5,000 per big cat, $1,500-$2,500 per non-human primates, etc.), promising the former owners their animals would receive lifelong care in large natural habitats. The WAO would send out newsletter appeals requesting immediate donations for the newly “rescued” animals claiming they arrived in “critical condition” and needed expensive medical treatments when in fact they were healthy when they first arrived. Animals were “warehoused” in small quarantine cages for months or even years, and it was not uncommon for the WAO to destroy certain animals once they became a financial burden to the organization.
In addition, for the last five years, a tremendous amount of evidence was also provided to the USDA/APHIS Western District Director, Dr. Robert Gibbens, proving the WAO violated numerous tenants of the Animal Welfare Act. Internal communications revealed the USDA/APHIS and the WAO board of directors were aware of the violations and yet both the WAO Board of Directors and the USDA/APHIS failed to comply or prosecute these violations in accordance with the AWA regulation.
In my opinion, no-notice in-depth and consistent APHIS inspections should be conducted semi-annually to ensure sanctuaries exceeds the basic requirements of food, water, and shelter, and to ensure animals are properly contained within their habitats. In the WAO case, often times inspection discrepancies were identified orally by the inspector to the staff and not documented in the APHIS inspection reports. It is my opinion; the USDA was laxed in its inspections of the WAO property, thereby enabling the directors to cut corners in animal care and containment for the last decade or so.
Like the OAG prosecutor, the USDA/APHIS consciously chose NOT to pursue charges against the WAO Board of Directors for violating the AWA.
If the House Committee of Culture, Recreation & Tourism is concerned with the health and welfare of Texas communities situated near exotic wild animal sanctuaries, then I urge this Committee to open an investigation in to why the Texas OAG and USDA prosecutors fail to protect Texans and its animals from unscrupulous non-profit corporations—as exemplified in the WAO case. The OAG and USDA must take each case of fraud and/or animal abuse/death seriously and not discriminately choose the type of case he or she would like to prosecute. For if law enforcement agencies refuse to uphold our current laws, then how will new laws benefit our communities and its animals?
Thank you for your kind consideration regarding this important issue. If you would like additional information regarding the WAO case, please do not hesitate to contact at me at (210) xxx-xxxx or by return email.
Sincerely,
Kristina Brunner
I don't expect to hear from the Committee again, but at least I was able to put forth my views. It they create and ratify a bad bill, then I can at least say "I told you so!"
Later: I received a second response via snail mail. Simply put, this was a kiss-off letter.
Later: I received a second response via snail mail. Simply put, this was a kiss-off letter.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Two Sides to the Same Story
A couple of days ago, a friend of mine asked me how exotic wild animal sanctuaries were "created" in the US. I did not have a definitive answer at that time, so I decided to do some research, with some help, of course!
I would like to thank my sister (she sent me the last video on this posting) and two friends whom sent me law references, pictures, videos, and articles found in this posting.
So what exactly is a wild animal sanctuary?
Well, let's see. According to WikiAnswers, a sanctuary is "an area specially designated where it is illegal to interfere in anyway with the natural life there. Hunting, shooting and fishing would be prohibited. A sanctuary is a place where killing or capturing of any animal is prohibited except under orders of the authorities concerned. They provide protection and optimum living conditions to wild animals."
However, an amendment to the Lacey Act Amendments (Public Law 108-191-Dec, 19, 2003), (2) (C), defines an accredited sanctuary as:
(i) a corporation that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 1986 and described in sections 501(c)(3) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of such Code;
(ii) does not commercially trade in animals listed in section 2(g), including offspring, parts, and byproducts of such animals;
(iii) does not propagate animals listed in section 2(g); and
(iv) does not allow direct contact between the public and animals.
The definition of "sanctuary" seems to vary between different non-profit corporations. There are a few core beliefs, such as no buying exotics from breeders (fur farms) or selling of its animals (to private owners) and of course they only take in animals that simply have no other place to go.
Some people espouse that a good sanctuary has a no "hands-on" provision when it comes to exotic wild animals (you can look but you can't touch).
Others believe that the animals should not be exploited in any way (no putting Tigger's picture on a mug to sell or give paid tours of the animals' habitats/enclosures).
And then there are those that believe the animals should live as wild as possible, no human interaction what-so-ever (that means no face or butt animal paintings).
So if you want to know what a non-profit organization's definition of a sanctuary is, you will have to take a peek at the non-profit's mission statement.
So, let's take a look one at one of the oldest sanctuaries operating in the US, The Wild Animal Sanctuary (WAS) and see how it got started. According to the WAS website, the founder, Pat Craig, in 1980, created the Rocky Mountain Wildlife Conservation Center, DBA The Wild Animal Sanctuary on his family farm outside Boulder Colorado.
After two physical relocations, the WAS moved to its present location near Keenseburg, Colorado and today it is open to visitors, year round.
But the sanctuary was not always open to the public. In 1996, the facility was not open for public tours, but it was open for wildlife photographers and film crews.
An NPR article dated April 14, 1996, titled “NOT ALL WILDLIFE DOCUMENTARIES ARE FILMED IN THE WILD,” provided a running interview narrative between Pat Craig and Mark Roberts. In this article, Pat Craig discussed with the interviewer how photographers and film makers stage certain wild animal scenes so as to “imitate life in the wild.”
Pat Craig apparently allowed photographers and film makers to use his animals to stage “fake” wild animal scenes “so long as his animals had fun.” It wasn’t until one of the filmmakers wanted to take his pet jaguar, Freckles, to Arizona and film him attacking a coatamondi, when Pat Craig raised an objection as to how his cat was to be used in the film.
The article stated Pat Craig eventually discontinued the use of his animals by photographers and filmmakers when he “witnessed privately-owned mountain lions attack tame deer.”
You can read the NPR article below:
Here's a touching picture of Pat Craig and his "pet" jaguar, Freckles:
(click to read article)
Pat Craig was not the only one to have a close and personal relationship with exotic "pets" as a pet owner and breeder, Tammy Thies from Wild Cat Sanctuary also enjoyed the companionship of exotic cats in her home.
 |
| Jasper |
According to the St. Thomas Winter 2000 Magazine, Tammy Quest Thies started her sanctuary, The Society for Wild Cat Education, on her personal property. And like most sanctuary founders, Tammy's house was located on the sanctuary grounds and when Tammy retired for the evening she was joined by a serval, caracal and on occasion, a lynx. Tammy was quoted as saying "I pretty much sleep around them." Obviously, Tammy and her small exotic cats had a pet/owner relationship.
According to the St. Thomas Winter 2000 Magazine, Tammy Quest Thies started her sanctuary, The Society for Wild Cat Education, on her personal property. And like most sanctuary founders, Tammy's house was located on the sanctuary grounds and when Tammy retired for the evening she was joined by a serval, caracal and on occasion, a lynx. Tammy was quoted as saying "I pretty much sleep around them." Obviously, Tammy and her small exotic cats had a pet/owner relationship.
Here is the St. Thomas Winter 2000 Magazine article on Tammy Quist Thies' early years.
 |
| Photo insert from St. Thomas Winter 2000 Magazine article |
Much like Pat Craig, Tammy Thies enjoyed working and handling "demonstration" cats such as snow leopards, tigers and lions in her early years.
But one day she worked on a photo shoot featuring a Bengal tiger and a black leopard, and that was all it took. She was smitten. — St. Thomas Winter 2000 Magazine
It appears to me that well-known sanctuary directors like having a close and personal relationships with their animals, very much like relationships private exotic pet owners share with their animals.
Even well-known movie star, Tippi Hedren, President of Roar Foundation (dba Shambala Preserve), started her own sanctuary with pet exotic animals she either acquired or bred at her residence.
 |
| Images from the 1970s home actress Tippi Hedren and daughter Melanie Griffith shared with a lion named Neil |
 |
| Melanie Griffith And Her ‘Pet’ Lion |
 |
| Tippi and her lion Neil |
She even produced a movie back in the day called "Roar" that depicts her own lions, which I understand will be re-released this year. Click here to read more about this movie.
Here is a short video of an incident that took place between Melanie Griffith and a lion.
I would be remiss if I didn't include Carol Baskins, director of Big Cat Rescue, formerly known as Wildlife on Easy Street in the mix. Like all the folks mentioned above, Baskins kept exotic animals as pets. It has been said that Baskins not only bought exotics, but she also bred and sold them to strangers. Like the WAO's directors, Baskin used animals as a way to make money. And like the WAO directors, when the winds of change came about, BCR suddenly changed its operating style, name, and rewrote her pets' "histories."
I remember watching this video back in late 1990s (I think I just started volunteering with the WAO at the time) and was amazed that there was a place that allowed folks to sleep with cougars. Knowing that cougars literally come to life at night, I couldn't imagine anyone sleeping with such large cats! Anyway, here's the video that I saw so many years ago.
(Having problems viewing video while using Chrome?
Copy and paste web link into Internet Explorer)
My research into the WAO led me to the BCR and so after reviewing many records on-line, I came to came to the conclusion that the WAO and BCR are very similar indeed.
So what makes sanctuaries different than private owners?
You see, private owners are not charitable non-profit corporations and therefore cannot solicit charitable contributions from the general public in order to maintain their animals. Private owners must have the resources to provide for their exotic animals.
Many sanctuaries, from what I have been able to gather, were established, for the most part, by at-one-time private exotic animal owners who choose to turn their "pet" ownership into a non-profit business.
Some sanctuary founders’ not only have a history of private pet ownership, but also have a history of breeding their exotic wild animals so the offspring could be sold to other breeders or private owners.
 |
| Otis |
For years, the founder of Big Cat Rescue initially bred her animals for profit and like Tammy Thies, obtained some of her animals from fur farms. Carol Baskins was quoted as saying "We were pet owners--we were the pet trade."
Private pet owners typically choose young animals (12 – 16 weeks) because they were much cuter and easier to handle than a full grown animal. Tammy Thies was one such owner who obtained a four month old Siberian Lynx named Otis from a Canadian fur farm, along with his sister, Lindsey. And Carol Baskins purchased 56 bobcat kittens from a fur farm for her own cat breeding program in the early 1990s.
Often, private owners and sanctuaries would buy animals from fur farms with the misguided belief that they "saved" the animals from a life of breeding or worse sold for their fur. Justifying these "purchased animals" only perpetuated the very problem private owners and sanctuaries say they were against in the first place; for you see, if you buy animals from a fur farm, you are only encouraging fur farm owners to expand their business, so as to accommodate a growing customer base.
Private pet owners typically choose young animals (12 – 16 weeks) because they were much cuter and easier to handle than a full grown animal. Tammy Thies was one such owner who obtained a four month old Siberian Lynx named Otis from a Canadian fur farm, along with his sister, Lindsey. And Carol Baskins purchased 56 bobcat kittens from a fur farm for her own cat breeding program in the early 1990s.
Often, private owners and sanctuaries would buy animals from fur farms with the misguided belief that they "saved" the animals from a life of breeding or worse sold for their fur. Justifying these "purchased animals" only perpetuated the very problem private owners and sanctuaries say they were against in the first place; for you see, if you buy animals from a fur farm, you are only encouraging fur farm owners to expand their business, so as to accommodate a growing customer base.
Even Jack Hanna owned lions and other animals at his home:
 |
| Click article to read |
Sadly, Mr. Hanna put a new twist to the private lion ownership incident when interviewed by Larry King in 2004:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/06/lkl.00.html
Back in 1973 -- I don't really announce this very often -- we had a tragic accident happen with a 3-year-old boy in Knoxville, where I had an animal farm where I had animals for zoos around the country I took care of for them. And this African lion -- a little boy crossed a fence or two -- took the boy's arm off at the shoulder. And I had to go get the arm, and it wasn't able to be put back on the young man.
Later in the interview:
KING: He says that by having his children live with crocodiles in the back yard, he's being a good father by teaching them about crocs at an early age.
HANNA: Larry, there's no doubt about that. I had eight African lions in my -- in this compound for the zoos in Tennessee. I had everything in the world there. I had three daughters. I had one that was a 3-year-old or whatever it was, when I told you about this accident. But whenever they were there, they were taught not to go across the fence. They were taught to look at the animal with respect and dignity, whether it be in the wild or in a zoological park or wherever it might be. And that's kind of where I'm coming from, from this standpoint.
Home, farm, compound...whatever one calls it, Mr. Hanna had his own private collection of exotic animals. It's amazing how much the attitudes towards private animal ownership changed in the last 30-50 years!
And then of course, there were the founders of the Wild Animal Orphanage, Ron and Carol Asvestas, whom also bred animals for profit until it fell out of "fashion" with the animal crowd. It was easier to rake in the money from donors, thereby supporting their "pets" until they died and then replaced those animals with more animals, year after year after year.
The Argument
What I found interesting is that the very people who owned and even bred animals for profit are now actively supporting legislation to prohibit other people from owning or breeding animals. In my post, “War Was Declared Against WAR!", you can clearly see the battle lines drawn between sanctuary founders and private owners. You may be thinking that the sanctuary founders whom previously owned exotics are acting like hypocrites today, saying no one should privately own exotic wild animals, even though their sanctuaries were started with their own personal "pets".
I’ve heard the argument that ex-private pet owners operating animal sanctuaries have essentially learned from their checkered “pasts” and are now working in a more “ethical” industry by taking in ex-pets, ex-circus performers, and ex-roadside zoo animals that no one seems to want or need anymore.
Sooo…having heard this argument, am I supposed to believe that in the beginning, exotic wild animal owners were not ethical people until after they opened up their own wild animal sanctuary (normally on their own property, not owned by the sanctuary)?
I’ve heard the argument that owning exotic wild animals is just too dangerous and that only sanctuary personnel have the expertise to work around these dangerous animals.
Hmmm…the only experience I had working around the WAO’s large big cats, bears, wolves, primates, etc., was my personal experiences as a domestic pet owner, and yet I was able to feed the animals, clean their cages, and prepared enrichment items for their enjoyment.
Come to think of it, I don’t think I've ever worked or volunteered with anyone at the WAO who had prior experience caring for cougars, tigers, lions, bears, etc.
Is there even a school for exotic wild animal caretakers? In San Antonio? In Texas? In the US??? I am willing to bet the majority, if not all, of the individuals who owns a sanctuary today, learned how to care for exotics through their own personal experiences. And that includes their current staff members.
This led me to ask more questions about the wild animal ownership debate—which ultimately led me to this video:
I’ve heard the argument that ex-private pet owners operating animal sanctuaries have essentially learned from their checkered “pasts” and are now working in a more “ethical” industry by taking in ex-pets, ex-circus performers, and ex-roadside zoo animals that no one seems to want or need anymore.
Sooo…having heard this argument, am I supposed to believe that in the beginning, exotic wild animal owners were not ethical people until after they opened up their own wild animal sanctuary (normally on their own property, not owned by the sanctuary)?
I’ve heard the argument that owning exotic wild animals is just too dangerous and that only sanctuary personnel have the expertise to work around these dangerous animals.
Hmmm…the only experience I had working around the WAO’s large big cats, bears, wolves, primates, etc., was my personal experiences as a domestic pet owner, and yet I was able to feed the animals, clean their cages, and prepared enrichment items for their enjoyment.
Come to think of it, I don’t think I've ever worked or volunteered with anyone at the WAO who had prior experience caring for cougars, tigers, lions, bears, etc.
Is there even a school for exotic wild animal caretakers? In San Antonio? In Texas? In the US??? I am willing to bet the majority, if not all, of the individuals who owns a sanctuary today, learned how to care for exotics through their own personal experiences. And that includes their current staff members.
This led me to ask more questions about the wild animal ownership debate—which ultimately led me to this video:
Part I
Part II
What I came away from studying both side of the issues, is both sides (sanctuary and private owners) love their animals. Both sides do not want to be legislated to the point where they can no longer maintain their animals. Both sides want the other side to be legislated by State and/or Federal agencies. And both sides think they have the right to own or possess exotic wild animals. If you are confused about this issue, don’t worry, you are in good company.
Are there great private animal owners and sanctuaries out there? I would say yes; we just don't hear about them in the news because these owners/sanctuaries are obeying the laws and taking proper care of their animals. The only time we hear about private animal ownership is when something terrible goes terribly wrong. Interesting to note, the wrongdoings of sanctuaries are kept very quiet and out of the public's limelight.
Should people own animals as pets, whether in a sanctuary or home environment? Only you can decide. And just for the record, I am not against wild animal sanctuaries or private ownership. I just believe there should be more open dialog between both groups for they can learn a lot from each other. After all, for the most part, they have a lot in common!
All this fighting between the two groups makes me relieved I can still go home to my furry companions, putting my troubles aside for another day. I think I will give my cats and dogs a big hug tonight and be grateful that as of today, I can still keep domestic pets in my home. For who knows, someday, someone, somewhere, will enact laws restricting dogs and cats to zoos or sanctuaries and make it illegal to own one as a "pet".
On a lighter note, if you think it's hard to tame a tiger, then you obviously do not have a kitty waiting for you at home! Cat lovers everywhere--rejoice in the "The Mean Kitty Song" — Me-ow!
(Having problems viewing video while using Chrome?Copy and paste web link
into Internet Explorer)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)