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.”