Food For Thought

For the last few days, the media and Facebook supporters have inundated the Internet with stories of Cecil the lion.  Some people are for canned hunts and others are totally against canned hunts.

A less covered story is Planned Parenthood selling body parts of babies born at Planned Parenthood for profit.

Both stories are outrageous and terrible.  They cannot be compared.  They are both horrible. Period.

Why is there so much outrage over Cecil the Lion's death and not the discovery of Planned Parenthood's body parts selling scheme?  Well, here's just one posting I found on the Internet that may explain why...

Next person to selfishly compare an issue that has never had media attention and was a brutal callous murder with 2 days of suffering of an innocent being, to any other human issue that has the backing of media and hundreds of thousands of people supporting the cause, you are off my friends list. Your issue is important, but your issue has backing. Give the spotlight to another issue that needs attention too. There is no place on any issue of life and death for selfishness. And if it compared to criminals and a push for a race war, you're going to hear what I have to say before I delete you. I don't have time for that kind stupidity.

Wow.  There is no room for both issues?

There are so many pictures of Cecil right now on FB...like this one going around:

In memory of Cecil.A beloved lion who lived in peace.Known for his love and compassion.He was murdered lawlessly for a trophy.
~ MAY YOU WALK WITH ANGELS ~ 
Cecil was a famous, beloved 13 year old lion living on a protected National Wildlife preserve in Zimbabwe. He and another lion had formed a friendship to guard the pride and father lion cubs in peace. He was known for his loving and compassionate nature. 
Cecil was reportedly lured from his safe surroundings by raw meat. A Minnesota dentist then was said to have shot him with a bow and arrow. Wounded, Cecil ran off and lay suffering for 40 HOURS before the dentist and guides tracked him down, shot him, skinned him and chopped off his head. To this dentist, animals are just trophies. It has been reported the Minnesota dentist paid $55,000 to hunt and kill a lion. 
Rest in peace Beautiful Soul and Walk with Angels...Bette Kelley 

But there are no pictures of other animals killed in "canned hunts" both in the US and overseas.  Nor are there any pictures of dead babies, torn apart and sold for parts.  

Why is that?  

I also saw lots of comments on how horrible humanity is and that humans should die and leave the planet for the animals.  Really?  Die?  All of us?  Even the authors of these comments? 

For the record I am totally against canned hunts and the horrible death of Cecil.   Trophy hunting is disgusting in my humble opinion.  I watched what happened to a tiger and cougar on a canned hunt years ago on TV and the images seared into my brain cannot be forgotten. I believe there is a special kind of hell waiting for people who kill the innocent in the name of profit and pride.

I am also against abortions, especially killing babies after they are born, but again, that's my humble opinion.  You may disagree with my stances on both topics, but please don't trash my opinions.  They are mine alone and NOT yours to discredit.  

Look, as long as we continue to devalue life, including human life, humanity's values will continue to deteriorate.  We devalue certain animals so we can eat them.  We devalue certain animals so we can experiment on them.  There is even a call to devalue convicted criminals living in prison so we can do invasive experiments on them instead of animals.

Now babies are being killed and sold as commodities for profit.  Seriously, is anyone really surprised by this??  It's the next step in dehumanizing life.  The Nazis did it by dehumanizing a large segment of Europe's population.  Now we are doing the same thing today, this time it's tiny life forms that are the most vulnerable.   What next?  The elderly?  I've always said the ones that need the most protection from evil are animals, babies, and the elderly.  Makes me wonder what life will be like in 20-30 years. Will we evolve or will we continue to devalue life?

When will people learn that as long as we continue to spew out garbage about death and destruction on the Internet, we are just one step closer to our own demise?  If you keep pounding on young minds that humans are horrible, that humans must die, then how can we expect the next generation to empathize, respect, and care for life?

Think about it.  Words matter.  Life matters. ALL Life matters -- that includes humans, babies, fetuses, animals, plants...all life.  Enough of the dehumanization of life.  Let's celebrate life and teach the next generation that life is precious and should be celebrated!

#SpeakLife  #SpeakLove  #SpeakCompassion.  

Later:

I have been reading a lot about how handsome Cecil was with his gorgeous black mane on Facebook and the outrage expressed by various animal groups and sanctuaries over how he died.

My thoughts inevitably turned to a time when the WAO had 5 handsome rare black maned lions at the Leslie Road property.  Sadly, the brothers did not live long at the WAO.  I was told that Carol Asvestas made the decision to have them killed because she considered them "too aggressive" to live (by the way, the USDA says it's OK for sanctuaries to kill their exotic animals as long as it is done without purposely inflicting pain or intense discomfort and that the body is properly disposed of). Goodness only knows what happened to their bodies after they were killed either by the WAO staff or the WAO vet at the time, Dr. Ehrlund.

No one mourned the loss of these five brothers.  The workers didn't even blink when they were killed.  There was no outcry from the public.  No internet uprising.  No one cared about the brothers' death. 

Keep in mind, there were options for these lions.  The WAO could have been sent the lion brothers to another sanctuary that knew how to handled aggressive lions.  Or they could have moved the brothers to Talley Road, placing them in a large natural enclosure.  The only time I ever saw the lions become aggressive was during feeding time.  There were only two feed holes in their cage and so the five lions fought over the pieces of meat that were dropped into the enclosure.  I have a feeling the lions didn't receive enough food at the WAO, and that may have contributed to their increased aggressiveness.

These magnificent lions had been through so much before they arrived at the WAO and knowing their lives were snuffed out at the WAO was absolutely heartbreaking.

I've come to realize that time does not heal old wounds. Stories, like those featuring Cecil's demise is a constant reminder to me of the WAO nightmare.  I just wish the government, other sanctuaries, and animal "rescue" groups worked hard to save the WAO animals instead of turning their collective backs on them.  It just makes me sick to see these same groups spouting their opinions on Cecil's demise.  Where was the outrage over all the animals that suffered at the hands of those running the WAO?  Where were the tears?  The condemnation?  The protests?

Hypocrites.  All of them.

Show Me the Money?

If you have been reading this blog for awhile, then you know how I feel about the Wild Animal Sanctuary based in Colorado.  To this date, I still cannot get the image of the executive director kicking one of the WAO bears into an animal transporter.  Nor will I forget the hostile email I received from the same director when I inquired on how Boris was doing. But I digress.

A fire storm took place on Facebook yesterday and today regarding the "admission fees" the WAS charges its guests:

The Wild Animal Sanctuary

July 29·

We want to address the recent changes to the visitor policies at the Sanctuary, as it has caused much grief for a certain demographic of people. Being a non-profit Sanctuary, we face unique challenges in order to exist.

Our mission to rescue and care for large carnivores requires an incredible amount of time, money and dedicated commitment by thousands of people, and it's no small feat to successfully address the complexities that come with running a facility the size of The Wild Animal Sanctuary.

Following our secondary mission to educate the public about the Captive Wildlife Crisis is also something we hold dear to our hearts. Thus, we made the choice to open our doors to the public nearly 12 years ago in order to reach those people who never knew the problem existed.

Over the past 12 years, we have been able to greet well over 2 million people to the Sanctuary's 720 acre facility, and we have seen the issue of Captive Wildlife spread throughout Colorado... the U.S... and even in dozens of other countries around the world.

We are extremely grateful for the million+ people who chose to visit us, and even more grateful to those that subsequently chose to continue their support of our mission by becoming regular donors. By doing so, they demonstrated their understanding of how important continuous support is to a non-profit.

Unfortunately, over the past 12 years, there has also been a downside to having people come to visit, as there is always a percentage of the population that chose to come to the sanctuary for entertainment purposes instead of to learn about the issues behind our existence. Sadly, these people felt we existed for their benefit, and not for the welfare of the animals living here.

Year by year, the percentage of people who came for the wrong reasons grew - while at the same time - true animal advocates continued to come and value the concept of supporting a worthy cause. Yet, as the scales continued to tip in the wrong direction, we held true to our commitment to educate the masses about the problem of Captive Wildlife.

But today there is a new beginning, as the Sanctuary has fulfilled its obligation to reach out to those who did not know, as the millions we have educated are now passing the message on in a way that is nothing short of viral. The time has come for us to focus on a culture of giving rather than taking.

Our past entry fees have a long and complicated history beginning with the early years when we used to not charge anything for people to come visit us. In those days, the visitors were people that had heard of the great work we were doing from a friend, family member or coworker.

Their intentions were to learn about us and the animals we rescued, and then choose to support us – or not – based on the level of value they perceived. It was a simple equation and more than 95% of the people who came saw great things happening and became life-long supporters.

Yet, as more people began to come visit, they constantly demanded we should have a set fee to get in. The idea was somewhat comical in nature, as they could always come for free... but somehow they felt the fee structure would save the animals (rather than just leaving a donation).

Of course no one would want to pay anything more than what they might expect at a similar facility (i.e. the zoo)... and so the new entry fee concept was born. Yet, for us, all we wanted was for people to learn about the Captive Wildlife Crisis and possibly become an ardent supporter in the process.

Over the next decade, the costs associated with having the public visit grew astronomically. Everything from the number of parking lots, bathrooms, employees and other items associated with the public ballooned. As a result, the fees that people paid to get in did nothing to help the animals... and rarely covered the costs of being open.

However, those people that did visit, and did become active donors, became the heart and soul of the organization, as they knew the true cost of saving lives. For them, they knew they had a responsibility to be part of the solution rather than being part of the problem.

Today, the Sanctuary is proud to say we have one of the best facilities in the country, where more than 400 rescued carnivores live and thrive – all due to the dedicated supporters we have. There is no link to our being a Sanctuary for animals and that of a facility where people can go to be entertained.

So for those people that become upset their favorite entertainment venue has changed its policy, we want to remind you that the Denver Zoo is open 7 days a week. They have a wonderful array of species for you to go enjoy, and we hope you have a wonderful and entertaining visit.

For everyone else who realizes our Sanctuary has struggled and sacrificed enormous amounts of time, money and energy to save animals and give them a wonderful home, we welcome you to visit and consider becoming an active supporter. Please come join the thousands of other people that made that choice the first time they walked through our doors, and see how we will greet you with open arms.

You see, it’s not about the amount you donate – as that isn’t what is important. What is critical, is that you realize the nominal entry fees never did anything to help the animals and its time to begin supporting an organization that makes a real difference in the lives of animals.

Our animals may look the same as those you see at the zoo, but in reality, they are vastly different in many ways. Ours were not bought, traded or surplused... and would be deceased today had we not been there to rescue them.

Unfortunately, most of them existed to entertain people in their former lives, which caused them great harm. Once we were able to rescue them, and provide them with a wonderful home were they no longer had to perform, we made the conscious choice to always protect them from being used for entertainment.

So the time has come to re-foster and solidify a culture where people value the lives of the animals living here. If you don’t, then there is no need to visit the Sanctuary. Remember, our support does not come from admission fees, and that is why we will always allow active supporters to visit for free!

If you need a place to take your relatives or out-of-town guests, or feel the need to go see wild animals, please choose the appropriate venue for your personal entertainment. Conversely, If you cherish the lives of rescued animals and want to see them live out their lives in peace and harmony, please become an active supporter of The Wild Animal Sanctuary!

End.

Well over 1700 people responded to the fee changes and for the most part, people are against the $50 "entrance fee."

When I read this posting, the first thought that came to mind was "#ungrateful to past low demographic contributors.

"I wonder if this fee change will help or hurt the WAS -- I guess the bottom line with Pat Craig is show me the $money$ if you want to see the animals.

Later:I read quite a few of the comments and they all seem to focus on the same theme (here are just a few comments):

• Jennifer Janney You do amazing work...(unless I am misunderstanding your webiste)... I can't afford $200.00 per year to visit for "free" (then it's not free..it's $200.00 per year) nor can i afford $50.00 per person to come visit as a "prospective supporter" That's too bad. I donated$100 to help guero without ever having visiting the sanctuary. I've still never been...and it now appears that I can't afford to visit either. Was going to with my family soon..but that would mean a $300.00 since the "minimum prospective supporter donation" is now $50.00 per person. That's too bad.

  Like · Reply · 14 · Yesterday at 2:08pm · Edited
• 

  The Wild Animal Sanctuary Hi Jennifer, Although we have to implement a fee structure with the change - in order to prevent uncaring people from finding a way to abuse the system - we do feel you are an active donor. The whole concept is based on finding people who demonstrate their compassion for animals by helping them in whatever way they can. For some, giving monetary donations work best, for others, rescuing a dog or cat makes a difference. Yet, no matter what fits your lifestyle, you are a compassionate person and we would be honored to have you visit.

  Like · 5 · Yesterday at 2:14pm
• 
  

  Jim Slater Can you please explain how having someone pay the current entrance fee THAT YOU SET and see the animals equates to "uncaring people ... finding a way to abuse the system ". Are you telling me that during the several the times I have visited Wild AnimalSanctuary with friends, happily paid the entrance fee, marvelled at what you do, spent money in the gift shop, I was "abusing" you and you looked down on me as "uncaring" ? If so, I apologize for having visited. I guess you have decided you mission is to be an insular non-profit focusing just on raising money and no longer interested in educating the general public about animal abuse. Frankly, you sound like you have lost touch with reality and look at those of us who have happily visited WAS with total contempt. Am I missing something? Can you give me some reason why you think I was "abusing" WAS by paying your admission fee and enjoying learning what WAS does to save abused (irony here?) animals? What the heck is going on here? Raising your fees is fine, but insulting those of us who have visited over the years as "abusers" is beyond belief.

  Like · 31 · 21 hrs
• 
  

  Trish Gallegos McCaughin Well said.

  Like · 20 hrs
• 
  

  Kayla E Holmes Amen Jim!!!!
• Kristin Davis As an individual with a marketing and PR background, I personally feel this article is very insulting. Although the point of the change is understood - I thing it could have been communicated without the insults. Keep in mind it was your organization that built the bridge for better viewing, built the gift shop and build the snack bars - why? To attract more visitors. I might not be able to afford $200 for my children to be educated about the sanctuary because I do not fall into the "qualified demographics", however, I think by making this change, you are also taking a valuable learning experience away from many. My family will no longer be able to come visit because of this change which means the pennies that my children work so hard to save, for the benefit of the sanctuary, and the apples and pumpkins we have brought in the fall, will no longer be needed. That is a loss on your end as well as that of children and adults all over the country who have been mesmerized by the benefit of your sanctuary. Each time we've gone, has spent at least $150 between entrance fees, food, and gift shop. My daughter has learned a tremendous amount about the captive animal crisis, and was fascinated by their rescue stories. Our girl scout troop as also been and volunteered. The lessons learned here are not something you can get by having a fun day at the zoo. Yes, the zoo talks about conservation, but it's not the same and what is learned by visiting your facility. That is a much different experience. In my opinion, I believe that in the long run, the new policies will do more harm than good, as it will prevent many from taking advantage of the educational portion of your mission. I'm sorry, but you're cutting your nose off to spite your face. I believe there were much better ways to handle this change - i.e. the media, several months of advertising the change and promoting it in a way that made sense etc. This is your business (sanctuary) and you have every right to run it as you please, however the way this was handled was less than professional. My family will continue to visit the zoo for fun and will find other sanctuaries that are interested in continuing to educate and want the money my children work hard to save. Remember, two very different "demographics". I also believe if communication was thought through, there are so many ways to benefit all walks of life that love what you do, not just that of an exclusive demographic. Something to think about.

  Like · Reply · 24 · 18 hrs · Edited
• 
  

  Cassie Ratliff I want to double like this post!

  Like · 2 · 22 hrs
• 
  

  Andrea Lauritzen Well said

  Like · 18 hrs
• 
  
• Deanna Jackson Wow. Sorry to say, but you could've handled this post MUCH better. I understand what you're trying to accomplish, and agree that a zoo would be a better-equipped place for "entertainment", but calling out "a certain demographic" of people who don't like your price increase is just wrong. So what, only rich people "of a certain demographic" can donate and care about your cause? Is a $10 donation not as "good" to you as a $100 donation? Saying that people were "a part of the problem, not the solution", unless one understood the concept and value of your sanctuary is just crass. I thought your purpose was to educate people? Really, all you had to say was your prices were going up due to the costs of operations. All of your responses just make you sound greedy! And I quote: "Visiting our facility is not a requirement of supporting the organization.. we have thousands of supporters who live close by, and far away, that never qualify their support based on their ability to view the animals". WOW. Someone get a PR director on staff, stat. #fail #socialmedianightmare (For the record, I love the work that you do. As a social media manager myself though, this post could've been handled MUCH better).
• 
  
• Brett Sandford Okay, so let me get this straight; you started a foundation to care for animals that had nowhere else to go, which is a noble goal. You allowed people to come out and view the animals, but always went out of your way to pass along the messaging that the Animal Sanctuary wasn't a zoo, and it wasn't about using the animals for "entertainment." So why did you build a giant, long, invasive, expensive Mile Walk?
  
  Surely that money could have been better used to care for the animals? Surely that money could would have been better suited to finding other animals to rescue, or to promoting public understanding of their plights? Instead, you simply ran a scam; collect money from the people that love you the most, then turn and bite the hand that fed you.
  
  Add you spent another boat load of money building up the Bolivian Lion Habitat, to what end? Those lions don't need flat screen TV's, or vending machines, and they sure as hell don't need the cheap food you sell at your concession stand. No, that was ALL about getting more bodies through the doors, and all about maximizing profits. Sure, I'm no expert in large felines, but I'll bet they're not that happy about a bunch of weird people, and a bunch of weird sounds and smells, loitering about above their heads. The ONLY purpose that enclosure has is to give people a better view of the lions. You know, they ones that "aren't for entertainment."
  
  It's convenient how when you want to sound noble and courageous and maligned, you're happy to claim that the animals aren't for entertainment. But when you want to promote yourselves, you're happy to exploit photographs of the animals, and you're happy to give them names and merchandise their appearance, all in the pursuit of making a buck. If you guys were truly concerned about the well-being of the animals, you wouldn't have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars building up the infrastructure to improve attendance, you would have spent more on the animals themselves.
  
  Finally, it's disgusting how you take everyone to task for wanting to enjoy the animals in as close to their natural habitat as is possible. If you didn't want people gawking at them, why not just close the doors? People will still donate money; I know I would. If it was truly going to benefit the animals, everyone would be incredibly happy to help out. Instead, you lock people out of the park behind a ludicrous pay wall, but let those with money to burn (I'll be the first to admit, as a married non-parent, I fit into that demographic) come in as long as they pay the admittance fee. You're still selling access to the animals, you just want to keep out all the "poors" because they don't suit your particular brand of clientele.
  
  You should be ashamed of the blatant hypocrisy that you're spewing to your most devoted fans. You should be ashamed of taking advantage of the public trust by swindling people out of their money with the promise of updated facilities when you really wanted to show off just how cool your "not a zoo" could look. And you should be ashamed of spitting in the faces of your most ardent supporters; how many kids aren't going to get to learn about the issues these wonderful animals face, because your greed pushed out the less well off in our society? I can afford to come, because I've been blessed with a decent job. I can also afford to give my money to a more reputable organization that doesn't exploit their rescues for profit, and then try to hide behind moral superiority when they decide that a business is too hard to run.
  
  Good riddance; I'm glad you showed your true colors before I spent another cent here.
  Like · Reply · 12 · 15 hrs

David Barton Amen x1000

Like · 15 hrs

Debbie Henderson This is the article as written in The Tribune regarding the plans by TWAS to become a "tourist destination", including an RV park across the street from the sanctuary. How does this have the best interest of the animals at heart? Constant traffic & noise from campers and the convention center? I would like to know the difference between them and the zoos that they supposedly set themselves apart from? It seems they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Call it what it is, commercialism at its best! 
"The sanctuary submitted plans to the county for an expansion to accommodate guests, as well as a number of other goals the sanctuary has for the future.

Craig said it took the summer to finalize plans. The application submitted to the county includes plans for a new welcome center, a convention center to host events and a bed and breakfast and RV park on property across the street from the sanctuary. There is no immediate date for the Weld County Planning Commission to review the application.

The expansion would be a big step for the Wild Animal Sanctuary as a tourist destination, Craig said.

The plans would most likely be executed in three parts, Craig said. The welcome center would come first followed by the RV park and bed and breakfast. All of the goals would cost $6 million to $7 million.

But the money won’t come from donations made to the animals, he said.

The United States Department of Agriculture is already on board with the project and willing to help fund it, Craig said.

County Planner Tom Parko could not be reached for comment about the plans.

County Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, whose jurisdiction includes the Wild Animal Sanctuary, refused to comment."

Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs · Edited

...and the comments go on and on and on....