SANCTUARY: it’s needed and wanted!
At first, the capital campaign for the Fairview property mentioned prominently that money was being raised for rehabilitation AND a sanctuary. Then, the mention was for a home for just a few creatures for “educational” purposes. Now, it sounds from what Julia Parker has said, that she and the WCN intend to follow what they see as the letter of the regulations, and euthanize all non-releasables, saving food money, although that is not mentioned.
What do you think? Other (but not all) rehabilitation organizations are also sanctuaries. Why not the SBWCN? Why not apply for an additional permit to allow non-releasable birds and small mammals? There’s space on the 1.5 acres. And will the annual $-raising Biltmore luncheon have a name change and no longer be the SANCTUARY AWARDS?
The pond for years had non-releasables and instead of killing the pelicans and gulls, donors were brought to admire them, especially at volunteer appreciation parties, but individually, too. People often donated as a result. (What would they have thought of the plan to transfer those birds to a zoo!)
A volunteer wrote to this blog: “This is always a problem for us on so many levels. It is also one which should be of interest to the money side of the machine, since showing animals to potential donors is one of the main ways we/they procure funds. ...Nothing is more heart breaking to me than thinking about putting down a healthy animal, for instance, one who was raised by us, because after many months the animal turns out to have some defect or incurable yet not life threatening (or painful) condition.”
Don't animals have rights to life? Shouldn't they?
What do YOU think should be the policies of the SBWCN for unreleasable wildlife, should there be a sanctuary, not a zoo, not as pets, but a chance to live out their lives?
Messages from: gulled in SB, Sharon, E. Mtn Drive Charis, Betsy, Brat, accompanied by a mischief of anonymice, including a thoughtful Anonymous comment from an "oldtimer" on 2/17/2006 04:13:25 PM
To see what people are saying about sanctuary, about euthanasia, click on COMMENTS and scroll down; the most recent posts are at the bottom.
Available is how to view the status of the 1460 N Fairview permit; go to SB County P&D; write in the permit application number: 04BDP-00000-01564. Available on the SBWCN web site is the MOU from the State.
posted by citizenRB @ 2/03/2006 08:27:00 AM
22 comments
links to this post
22 Comments:
No comments yet about having a sanctuary? No one cares? Or no one knows about the topic - there was no e-mail about it? Or what?
Definitely there should be a sanctuary! Some could say the zoo is a sanctuary, but a zoo is fully as much for people as it is for the animals.I'd say more for the people. And, anyway, it is for the less common creatures or totally uncommon, such as elephants, giraffes and not for the ordinary Santa Barbarans, the gulls (my namesake), the pelicans, the possums, and others of our neighbors.
I don't know whether a sanctuary should be part of the SBWCN, but I definitely don't think there should be the high rate of killing ("putting to sleep" - aye, but what dreams? what responsibility have the death-dealers?) there is now.
And I think this blog should reach out to the broader animal-loving community — the sanctuary idea is a concern, an interest for all in Santa Barbara.
We definitely must change the name of our awards banquet if (even if it is a matter of compliance with regulations) we intend to euthanize every non-releasable. The name is misleading to the public if this is not part of what we plan to do.
The main problem I see with an across the board euthanasia policy is interpretation. I have seen both birds and mammals who appeared "hopeless" recover to releasable status after what might be seen by the new mamagement as "too long a time". The other side of the coin, I have seen animals linger much longer than they should have. This is NOT a definable science in that area. And I flatly disagree with killing of healthy animals who do not seem to experience great stress in captivity, simply because they have a condition which would make them non-competitive in the wild. I don't have the answers as far as finances, permits, etc. There are my opinions which we are all here to discuss freely.
Is there one person here that does not know of a non-releasable animal or bird that is being kept? I know lots. How would you guys do this for opossums? They are nocturnal so the public could see their butt..maybe! they snare, hiss an all sorts of non social things. Do we put them down if not release able? Do we cage them? How big a cage? Only one opossum per cage! I understood that the SB Zoo was going to take the birds from June. Maybe down the line. while we are keeping all these non releaseble's alive, taking up cages, unhappy because THEY ARE WILD ANIMALS, what do we do with the ones that need help but we don't have cage space, people or money for medicine or food? I do the data entry of the intake forms and for 2005 we took in 2783 animals. 209 we put down. that means we saved or they died on their own 2574. I thing that is WONDERFUL and I'm proud to be a member of such caring people that would go out of their way, use their time and money for 2574 little soul that we didn't even know and know that we would have to release.
But that's just me.....
And keeping with the animal theme...
GO SEAHAWKS!!!!!!!!
Replying to Sharon:
June wrote in the post below that she was "informed" that the pelicans that had been resident at the pond for up to 5 years were to be sent to an LA zoo.
It's at least arguable that placement in the Santa Barbara zoo would have been preferable to LA - at least, that way those of us, quite a few of us, actually, who have cared for them over the years could have visited them. ...
But the point of a sanctuary is for the creatures and not for the viewers or at least very secondarily for the viewers.
I doubt anyone is suggesting a series of cages such as in the Center (which always reminds me of a prison) but a habitat approaching as much as possible the natural one.
Certainly, it would be difficult to choose who has life and who does not. Now, apparently, it is cut and dry: survive in the wild, step/move to the left; no survive, move down the street to CARE or uptown to Cat and Bird. (And perhaps at the new Fairview there will be someone there, licensed to euthanize, perhaps when the volunteers have gone home.)
(And discussing this should not be taken to be criticism of the good work that the SBWCN does, that the volunteers do in saving the numbers that Sharon mentioned --- but it is ALWAYS important to keep in mind, especially when one is congratulating oneself, that the good can defeat the better.)
There's a no-kill policy in the SB Animal Shelters. One wonders why wildlife deserves less....
PS: did the seahawks (aka osprey) get their fish?
SB Animal Shelter is NOT no kill. it is low kill. If a dog comes in and is sick beyond means, it is put down. As it should be. If a dog comes in and is vicious..they are put down. Do you really thing that the animal shelter is going to put a dog up for adoption that could kill or bite kids, dogs, cats or people. They also have an OLD dog there that has been there for at least 3 years....is that a quality life for a dog? You talk about the people being able to visiting the animals. then the people get to go home and do what they want. The animal is stuck in the enclosure 24/7. And they are wild animals that mostly likly have know how it is to soar or run free. We have to do what is best for the animals, not for us.
And sad to say the Osprey didn't wind...sob!
Sorry about your ospreys.
I don't k now what the orig. poster meant about no kill, but I do not think anyone suggests keeping a creature in ceaseless pain alive.
The question is those animals with a bad wing, for instance, or some other injury but one not apparently painful; or the pelican with one eye, had she lived, the policy now apparently is - I have not seen the MOU referred to - to euthanize. "Apparently" because the policy has not been stated - except to say there will be the MOU on the website sometime soon and that, apparently, is the policy? Or is it?
New Hampshire license plates say, "Live Free or Die" - is that the motto that's being suggested?
I can not speak to the quality of life of a dog there for 3 years. I don't know the dog, don't know the situation - but it's possible someone may come in and choose and be chosen by that dog.. If it is not possible or remotely likely, then I agree with you, that does not sound like a good quality of life. But is death better? Without knowing the details I have no answer.
a .07 euthaniztion rate does not seem high to me. I have seem nothing in writting that stated that we would start putting down all animals just beacuse they were not releasable. Let me know Where you guys saw this and I'll look into it.
Thanks!
PS the dog howls and barks all the time!
Sharon said,
"I do the data entry of the intake forms and for 2005 we took in 2783 animals. 209 we put down. that means we saved or they died on their own 2574"
Interesting. So, 7.5% of all animals that came in to the SBWCN in 2005 were euthanized.
I am guessing that 60% - what is the actual figure? - of those remaining (or about 1,544 - 55.5% of the total) were released and the remaining 44.5% "died on their own," as you say, in the SBWCN. Is that accurate?
As for the actual policies, we here don't know what they are and look forward to seeing both the MOU and the euthanasia policy posted. Someone wrote earlier on the blog that the MOU would be posted on the SBWCN web site and perhaps here.
We will be happy to give a link to the specific pages with the MOU and the euthanasia policy, as there is a link to the SBWCN web site, but this blog is not really the format for long postings and attachments.
We are looking into expanding the wildlifecaring concept, using a different Web format than a blog, one that could be more useful and informative to more people in the community, the larger Santa Barbara community concerned about wildlife. But this is a purely volunteer effort (as the SBWCN once was) and the wheels move slowly.
If you would post the accurate numbers, Sharon, that would be great. We want to be accurate. Whatever the numbers, the question remains about the need for a sanctuary. For us, it is not a question: there should be, there needs to be a sanctuary. How it would work remains to be discussed and studied in conjunction with other sanctuaries.
What seems obvious to some of us is that it should be part of the SBWCN at the Fairview property.
County Planning has announced an online permit notification service via email --- sign up for your zip code at http://www.countyofsb.org/plandev
To see the status of the SBWCN permit for 1460 N. Fairview, copy and paste this url into your browser: http://tinyurl.com/dh85s
(Sorry, I don't know how to make active links here.)
Thanks to
blogabarbara.blogspot.com for this helpful County Planning and Development site. (Blogabarbara is a good place to follow city and county happenings. They gave my blog, campsigns.blogspot.com, about political campaign signs, nice publicity a couple of months ago when it was active.
Congrats to the folks behind this wildlife one!
go vback to 1:42pm yesterday and I gave all the numbers...but here they are again. 2783 animals in. 209 euthanized. the rest were released or passed on. NOW...this number is ONLY the number of animals that moved out of our system. I don't know how many are still being taken care of as of 12/31/05.
Julie is working on getting the MOU scanned and one the website. JuliA has about 100 of the MOU's in a box at the center waiting for people to pick them up. It would be WAY to much to post to this site, but a link is already in place, once it is on the SBWCN wedsite.
The question was what was the number, the percentage that were released? Since you do the data, this number, often cited to be about 60%, should be one of the ones you have.
(E. Mtn. Drive Charis said..., referring to yours of 1:42, "I am guessing that 60% - what is the actual figure? - of those remaining (or about 1,544 - 55.5% of the total) were released")
I'm corn-fused. I thought you guys were worried about how many were put down. To me a release is a release. If we work to cure a pox crow for 2 months and it dies, does that mean we didn't work Hard enough?? We help the ones that die all we can. I had a little opossum who got caught by a dog. I feed it 4 times a day for 3 days and it died. Is that the centers fault? Is my fault, or was it the little girls time? The ones we can't save are dry, warm, fed and loved with they do pass over.
Julie has the database and is doing the recap for the center and for our Fish & Game license. I could do the Euth. because is was a smell number. the rest will come later. I have a feeling that we did better than a 60% release...
Huh?
Not a question of fault, Sharon. You posted stats, said you did the data, "I gave all the data," you wrote. The WCN regularly lists its release, its "success" rate, usually around 60% and we were interested for 2005. No big deal.
Debating whether euthanization wholesale is necessary because of overcrowding, insufficient funds, lack of volunteers, is MISSING THE POINT. There is a huge vacant permitted property sitting idle, money being wasted, and volunteers being discouraged due to MISMANAGEMENT. Those are pitiful excuses for killing the non-releasables. The way the "Network" is heading, perhaps to simplify matters all animals will be killed upon entry! Then management can have nice offices and a museum full of stuffed dead animals at fairview to raise money to pay themselves and buy awards for the directors to give each other.
The term "euthanize" means good death. It refers to the termination of a life already ending, and is a release from pain and suffering. Non-releasable animals are by definition not euthanized; they are KILLED, EXECUTED, SLAUGHTERED, etc.
"Thou shalt not kill".
BRAT said "Debating whether euthanization wholesale is necessary because of overcrowding, insufficient funds, lack of volunteers, is MISSING THE POINT. There is a huge vacant permitted property sitting idle, money being wasted, and volunteers being discouraged due to MISMANAGEMENT."
The Property is "sitting idle" because the permits are not through their process yet. Betsy on 2/6 gave everyone the link to check on the progress of the permits.
I understand no program/service/group is without things that we don't like. I don't know of one PERFECT marriage. what we do is work harder on the things we want to change and embrace the things we like. If we think negitive...we will become negitive. I have NEVER heard or seen or THOUGHT about killing all the animals as they come in. But, if we don't work on the things that need work on...we will not be SBWCN and all the animals WILL be put down. We're lucky, we have a choice...they don't! Was told today that an educational sanctuary was still in the works for the Fairview property. Have you guys seen the plans? It will be So nice...lots of space, large areas for the birds etc. We have to work to make it happen!
Good if a sanctuary is "in the works" --- so long as the definition of "educational" is broad: this is not an Arc and one or two of each species doesn't make it in terms of "sanctuary".
It would be worth checking with primary and generous donor Wendy McCaw, after whom the facility will be named, as to what she had in mind with her sizeable donation. I'd eat my proverbial and anonymous hat if she was not thinking sanctuary, that is, a home, a refuge for unreleasables - call it educational or whatever to placate the literal types, keeping in mind that the words "education," "educational" are very broad concepts.
No one is talking about keeping creatures in pain alive - but euthanasia means a humane death (although what "humane" means, when one looks at the human race, is another question.)
There's all sorts of ways of working to make things happen: raising money, raising consciousness are two ways. This blog, these comments may help with the consciousness.
I favor a sanctuary integrated with the rehabilitation of the injured. May it happen.
Everyone going to be at the meeting today @ 11:00 @ the fairview property? Julia is bringing lots of MOU's for everyone.
See you all there!
We have all kept critters that are non-releaseable! The fact is that the network could not and should not pay for the food and medical expenses for all of them. If an animal is a good educational candidate then it should at least be concidered for such. But generally, the problem is the emotional attachment to those we try to save that end up non-releaseable..the ones that fight soo hard..and we can not take their lives. We make a decision of whether they would be better off alive and captive or dead. This is a huge decision that we all have had to make at one point or another. I personally hate it! It is the worst part of rehabbing! The network had a year long commitee process made up of old timers to develop a euthanasia policy. There never had been one. Basically it says that when an animal comes in there is some criteria to use to decide if that animal should be put down right away..if it's injuries will make it permanently non-releaseable or if long-term captiveity will make it tto tame or if captivity will be detrimental to the animal due to stress...It is recommended that a lead volunteer for that species would be called in to make this decision if it was questionable..Us, old timers have a lot of experience to draw from and all of us have attempted to save animals that should not have been kept alive in the first place. We are not killers!! Wedo not relish making these decisions. But the network felt it better to ask an experienced volunteer for that species to make that call right at the beginning than to subject a newer volunteer to some of the hard experiences we have gone through over the years. All can not be saved. When there is time and room more serious cases that have a slight chance of recovery can be placed in rehab. But when everyone is up to their ears in babies and all are crying for space..tough decisions need to be made... If we save a critter and it can not be released, it is our responsibility to make the call of whether to keep it at our own expense or put it down and put the resouces..emotional and otherwise into one that can eventually be free. F&G does not allow for non-releaseables to be kept unless permitted for education or as a surrogate. Animals in rehab are not even supposed to be displayed or viewed by the public....There are some great sanctuaries in the west but there are many many more rehab facilities. We are a rehab facility...Like I said above..making the decision to end an animals life is the hardest thing we ever have to do...
It is possible! Where there is a will, there is a way as this news story from Indiana, the NWITimes.com, shows:
http://tinyurl.com/rgzfk
A home for every animal
BY ANN LAMPARSKI
Times Correspondent
CHICAGO HEIGHTS | Dwight Uhter takes on the responsibility of nurturing displaced wildlife on his 5-acre farm.
Uhter used to take in small animals at the age of 12. That kindness turned into Paws Critter Crossing -- a farm that accepts any type of wildlife that shows up at the door.
In 1999, Paws Critter Crossing was incorporated as a nonprofit organization that works to provide refuge to animals and rehabilitates and safely releases orphaned, injured or displaced wildlife, according to the farm's Web site.
...
Some animals that have found refuge at the Uhter farm include deer, raccoons, rabbits, squirrels and foxes.
Uhter is in need of volunteers to help with a variety of tasks at the farm. Chores range from feeding newborn animals, cleaning the barn, mowing, grooming, feeding, giving vaccinations and repairing and painting fences.
"Some of the animals live here, and some have been injured, and we release them back into nature after we get them all better," he said. "It is very fulfilling working with the animals. There's no monetary reward whatsoever. It's a good feeling knowing you are helping God's creatures and getting them back into the wild where they belong."
...
www.pawscrittercrossing.org.
The Awards lunch (or "luncheon," my dear, as they snottily call it) remains The Wildlife Sanctuary Awards & Silent Auction
What gall!
Anyone interested in picketing the Biltmore on Sunday, April 30, with signs saying, Sanctuary NOT Euthanasia for healthy creatures! ? If so, send this blog a note.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home