On June 13, 2025, Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue sent a mass email to more than 6,000 recipients. This message reached virtually everyone who has interacted with the organization over the past two decades, including many who are no longer active supporters but had not opted out of communications. Among general updates, the email included a public statement regarding the dismissal of two volunteers and allegations that they are “spreading misinformation via half-truths:”

“We recently released two volunteers. These former volunteers have launched a campaign that is spreading misinformation via half-truths, attempting to discredit Mickaboo’s long-standing reputation as well as the reputations of some of our veterinary partners. They may be seeking to have this misinformation published in the press. Their positions boil down to disagreements with Mickaboo’s leadership and about Mickaboo’s operating model.”

This messaging continues a troubling pattern of vague, unsubstantiated accusations delivered without evidence, without naming the individuals involved, and without engaging with the serious operational and ethical concerns raised by dozens of volunteers over the years. Conspicuously absent from the message was any acknowledgment that these concerns were documented and rooted in extensive firsthand experience. There was no indication that leadership intends to investigate these issues, invite dialogue or consider reform. Instead, the statement frames the matter as a personal dispute and an attack on the organization’s reputation, rather than a call for accountability and transparency.

Also included in the email was a link to a webpage featuring letters of recommendation from a few of Mickaboo’s veterinary partners. While these endorsements may reflect positive relationships—and no one disputes that Mickaboo has done meaningful work—they do not address the specific, ongoing problems that have been raised. These letters, while appreciated, are not substitutes for internal accountability or meaningful change.

Characteristically, Mickaboo used a donor and supporter communication channel to publicly discredit dissenting volunteers, rather than to engage substantively with the documented issues at the heart of this conflict. Contrary to leadership’s claims, we have not engaged in misinformation. Every statement made on thetroublewithmickaboo.com is supported by internal records, medical invoices and communications accessed through legitimate coordination roles. If any specific information is inaccurate, we welcome clarification, something leadership has consistently failed to provide. We will be using the same channel to address their claims, and we hope they will respond with documented evidence and thoughtful engagement, rather than deflection or personal attacks.

The real issues at stake are not merely “disagreements over operating models.” They include prolonged and costly bird boarding with no exit plans, a lack of transparency around finances and decision-making, and a persistent pattern of retaliatory behavior toward volunteers who raise legitimate concerns. Reducing these matters to a personality clash or a leadership style dispute is both dismissive and misleading.

For an organization that relies so heavily on volunteer labor and public trust, this approach should raise serious concern. Respectful dissent should never be met with mass public denunciation, particularly without any attempt to acknowledge or address the substance of the concerns raised.

As a community, we must ask: if Mickaboo’s leadership cannot tolerate internal questions or criticism, how can it credibly claim to act in the best interest of the animals—and the people—it was founded to serve?