Summary:

We reviewed two June 2025 invoices from For the Birds (FTB), which together document over $50,000 in charges to Mickaboo. These invoices show a consistent pattern of high-cost, long-term care concentrated among the same group of birds—many of whom have been in boarding or medical care for months or years. Of the 47 birds treated that month, only 18 appeared on a single invoice.

Billing was dominated by hospitalization (32.6%), a vague category labeled “in-patient treatments” (23.9%) and boarding (22.6%), with no documentation of outcomes, diagnostics or discharge planning. Most birds received multiple repeated services without evidence of case resolution.

One group of five wild conures appeared to undergo standardized pre-release screenings, raising questions about why Mickaboo funds wildlife rehabilitation while denying similar preventive care to companion parrots. Birds seen at FTB often receive frequent diagnostics, while birds seen elsewhere are denied equivalent care.

The invoices also reveal that Dr. Van Sant continues to prescribe deslorelin implants—a hormone suppressant not approved for use in birds under federal law. Deslorelin is not FDA-approved or indexed for avian species, and its off-label use is explicitly prohibited under 21 CFR § 530.41(c). The American Veterinary Medical Association and California Veterinary Medical Board affirm that such use violates both regulatory standards and professional ethics. Its continued administration at FTB raises serious concerns about oversight, legality and medical justification.

---

Full Article

We thought readers might be interested in reviewing two recent invoices (June 15th and July 1) from For the Birds (FTB), along with a breakdown of Mickaboo’s monthly expenditures there. FTB bills Mickaboo twice each month, and these invoices offer a representative snapshot of recurring costs and patient activity. These statements are remarkably consistent from period to period—both in total costs and in the list of birds receiving care. The same individuals appear on invoice after invoice, with little variation in services rendered.

As you review this information, a few contextual notes may be helpful. We have redacted the names of fosters or owners unless they are directly affiliated with FTB or Mickaboo leadership. For example, “Chinn” refers to Michelle’s daughter (who also works at FTB), and “Gertman” is the last name of Michelle’s husband.

In total, 47 unique birds were treated at FTB during the month of June. Of these, only 18 appeared on a single invoice—meaning the majority were treated across both billing periods.

One noteworthy group on the first June invoice includes five wild conures—Juvenile THC, Longer Beak THC, Ocean THC, Silver/Oct/Smash Face THC, and Speckled Red THC. Each bird received the same panel of diagnostic tests, with identical charges of $525.76. These appear to be some of the juveniles and fledglings admitted last fall, and this billing likely reflects a pre-release health screening. The continued prioritization of wildlife rehabilitation and release—while preventive care for companion parrots remains chronically underfunded—raises important questions about Mickaboo’s resource allocation and mission alignment.

Most birds receiving care during this period are long-term patients, including many with multi-month or multi-year histories at FTB. Birds identified in our two-year financial review (September 2022 to September 2024) and still appearing in June 2025 invoices include: Angel, Apollo, Bartol (wild conure), Billy (wild conure), Boomer (macaw), Bowley (wild conure), Felton (wild conure), Gus (Amazon), JoJo (African grey), Kansas (wild conure), Kol (cockatiel), Lilly (African grey), Maggie (also known as Mango or Guido, GCC), Martin (wild conure), Mihja (budgie), Paloma (wild conure), Poppy (wild conure), Rico (wild conure), Tequila (Amazon), and Winston (wild conure). Additional long-term residents include Bertee and Baby Thang.

An analysis of billing categories is consistent with what we saw in our two-year focus period. The majority (70%) of Mickaboo’s expenditures were concentrated in hospitalization, in-patient treatments and boarding. Hospitalization accounted for 32.6% of total charges. These fees, billed per day, reflect extended stays for multiple birds—often for 15 consecutive days or more—without indication from Mickaboo of discharge plans or outcome documentation. A broad and poorly defined category labeled “treatments” accounted for 23.9% of total charges. These included daily or twice-daily oral, topical or injectable medications, but the invoices provided no detail about the nature or purpose of the treatments administered. Several birds received continuous treatment over multiple billing cycles, suggesting chronic conditions or an absence of active case management.

Boarding represented 22.6% of total spending and included both “Medical Board” and “Mickaboo Boarding” charges. Medications and injections accounted for 7.4% of expenses, covering drugs such as Robenacoxib, diazepam, fluids and hormone treatments. These were often used in conjunction with long-term treatments or boarding but without supporting case updates or evaluations from Mickaboo. Lab testing—including Gram stains, PCV/TP, bile acid panels and disease screening—comprised 6.6% of spending. These tests were frequently repeated, yet Mickaboo does not include diagnostic conclusions in their records system or evidence-based justification for retesting. Furthermore, while birds seen at FTB receive multiple tests, Mickaboo denies similar care to birds seen at other vets.

Surgical procedures made up 5.1% of charges, driven by one bird, Finnegan, who underwent anesthesia and orthopedic intervention. Exams, including acute care, drop-off and rechecks, represented only 1.4% of the total—surprisingly low given the number of birds in care. A single $1,000 discount applied to Finnegan’s invoice reduced total charges by 6.6%. We don’t know why this was applied, but we have seen similar discounts a few times in invoices before this.

Taken together, these invoices reflect a pattern in which high-cost, long-term care dominates resource allocation while relatively little is spent on diagnostics, outcome tracking or preventive medicine.

A Note About Deslorelin

As we’ve demonstrated in the report, Dr. Van Sant routinely prescribes deslorelin implants for birds exhibiting normal hormonal behaviors. However, Deslorelin acetate (Suprelorin) is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in birds and is not included in the FDA’s Index of Legally Marketed Unapproved New Animal Drugs for Minor Species (the “Index”). In the United States, Suprelorin is approved only for use in ferrets to manage adrenal disease. It is not approved for avian species or any other species outside those explicitly listed in the Index. Under federal law, indexed drugs may not be used extralabel under any circumstance. According to 21 CFR § 530.41(c), “A drug listed in the index is not approved for use in any other species, and extralabel use of indexed drugs is prohibited.” This prohibition applies to all veterinarians and institutions, including nonprofit rescue settings. FDA Guidance for Industry #201 reiterates that indexed drugs are subject to more restrictive controls than FDA-approved drugs and are legally limited to the specific species, indications and conditions for which they are indexed.

Although some academic and clinical trials have explored deslorelin’s use in birds such as cockatiels, pigeons and quail, these studies were conducted under experimental protocols and do not carry any regulatory weight in the United States. Their existence does not authorize clinical use. The Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA) allows veterinarians to use FDA-approved drugs off-label in certain conditions, but that allowance does not extend to drugs on the Index. Indexed drugs are excluded from AMDUCA’s provisions and may not be used in unapproved species, regardless of clinical judgment or informed consent. This position is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, which explicitly notes in its guidance on extralabel drug use that indexed drugs “may not be used in species other than those listed on the label,” and by the California Veterinary Medical Board, which reminds licensees that off-label use of indexed products is a violation of both federal law and state professional standards.

As such, the use of deslorelin in birds without an FDA-sanctioned investigational exemption constitutes a breach of federal regulation and professional ethics. Its safety, efficacy and long-term effects in birds remain unproven, and its administration—particularly when performed routinely or without client awareness—raises significant legal and ethical concerns. In a nonprofit rescue environment, where transparency and medical oversight are fundamental obligations, the ongoing use of a restricted and unapproved drug such as deslorelin in birds should be subject to immediate scrutiny.