Summary:

A Mickaboo volunteer conducted a respectful, evidence-based review of the sensory enrichment provided to wild conures at the FTB boarding facility using a Mickaboo-released tour video. The analysis identified serious deficiencies in visual, tactile and auditory enrichment and proposed low-cost improvements rooted in best practices. Leadership responded not with engagement but by questioning the volunteer’s qualifications, then issuing new rules restricting such discussion on the Discuss list.

When the volunteer asked whether they could share the final assessments on nutrition and social enrichment, leadership refused, citing concerns about “length” and “vet evaluation.” Despite the volunteer’s professionalism and support from others, the conversation was shut down and moved offline. Leadership insisted this was not censorship but a matter of forum suitability.

Several volunteers pushed back, questioning why critical discussion about care standards was being silenced and why concerns about leadership were expected to be routed directly to leadership. Leadership maintained that Discuss should remain a “birds-first” space, but volunteers argued that excluding fact-based assessments and dissenting voices undermines transparency and trust.

This exchange reflects a broader pattern, documented in the larger report: Mickaboo leadership routinely suppresses critical feedback, protects long-standing relationships with vet partners and discourages open dialogue about systemic issues. By prioritizing control over conversation, they continue to marginalize the very volunteers trying to improve the lives of the birds.

---

Full Article

On July 21, 2025, a Mickaboo volunteer sent an email to the Discuss list announcing a plan to assess the quality of care and enrichment provided to the wild conures boarded at For the Birds (FTB). The sender emphasized neutrality in the ongoing disputes within the organization and framed the assessment as a fact-based effort to support Mickaboo’s mission and the well-being of its birds. Using a video tour released during a Mickaboo Forum session, the volunteer proposed a preliminary evaluation of FTB’s enrichment practices across four domains: visual, tactile, nutritional and social. The process was described as transparent, collaborative and open to input from other volunteers, without requiring formal veterinary credentials.

Shortly after, Sarah Lemarié, a Mickaboo leader, responded with immediate skepticism and veiled hostility. Rather than engaging with the substance of the assessment or welcoming dialogue, she questioned the sender’s qualifications and dismissed the need for any further review beyond what she and another staff member had already provided at a previous meeting. Her tone made it clear that leadership does not tolerate independent analysis or scrutiny from volunteers—especially those who challenge the status quo.

In a follow-up email, the original sender offered context for their qualifications, describing prior work applying LEED-certified green building principles to improve the psychological health and behavior of parrots in captivity. Drawing from case studies, environmental design research and consultation with researchers, the sender detailed successful outcomes in improving bird welfare through thoughtful environmental adjustments. They noted parallels between those experiences and the issues raised in the FTB video and offered this background as a basis for their contribution to the discussion.

Taken together, the exchange illustrates a broader pattern: Mickaboo leadership’s unwillingness to engage in open, constructive dialogue, and their reflexive defensiveness in the face of even modest, well-supported inquiries from concerned volunteers.

Volunteer’s Analysis

On July 26th, the volunteer sent their first analysis to discuss. The second and third were sent on July 29th and 30th, respectively. These first three articles examine the visual, tactile and auditory enrichment available to the parrots living at FTB. The analysis is based solely on what is visible and audible in a video tour released by Mickaboo and does not include onsite evaluation.

1. Visual Enrichment

The room is described as sterile, with light green walls and no visible decorative or visually stimulating elements. Most cages—especially the grey ones—lack any form of visual enrichment, with no colorful toys, posters or environmental features. A few black cages contain toys, and food presented in bowls offers some enrichment through color and variety but overall visual engagement is minimal.

The reviewer emphasizes that birds require visual complexity to avoid boredom, stress and behavioral problems. Proposed improvements include wall posters of natural vegetation, monitors displaying nature scenes, fake plants, brightly colored toys and sanitized natural elements like leaves and branches.

2. Tactile Enrichment

The analysis finds tactile enrichment severely lacking, especially for birds unable to perch. Most cages only contain flannel bedding, which may offer soft texture but no meaningful interaction. Toys are present in a few cages, mainly benefiting ambulatory (non-crippled) birds.

The absence of manipulable objects and varied textures is noted as a serious concern, potentially leading to feather picking, poor beak health, obesity, boredom, aggression and behaviors such as pacing, feather picking or self-mutilation. Suggested improvements include destructible toys, natural foraging materials, varied substrates, sanitized natural elements and safe non-toxic rotatable enrichment items tailored to each bird’s preferences.

3. Auditory Enrichment

The video’s soundtrack overlays narration, preventing assessment of real ambient sound in the boarding room. There are no visible audio devices or indications of intentional sound enrichment. The report notes that a lack of auditory stimulation can result in stress, frustration, excessive vocalization and, again, behaviors such as pacing, feather picking or self-mutilation.

The reviewer recommends incorporating natural recordings such as rain and birdsong, establishing contact calls, encouraging staff vocal interaction with birds and providing bird-safe sound-making toys.

Overall Conclusion

The FTB boarding room appears to provide minimal sensory enrichment in all three domains. While some food diversity and toys exist in a limited number of cages, most of the environment is visually, tactilely and auditorily barren—especially for birds with mobility issues. The reviewer calls for low-cost practical improvements inspired by best practices in zoos and modern avian care, emphasizing that replicating natural environments is essential for the psychological and physical well-being of captive birds.

The tone is measured and evidence-based but clearly critical of the status quo, underscoring that even a remote video inspection reveals serious shortcomings. The review also encourages others to assess the situation independently using the same publicly available video.

Leadership’s Decree

Later, on the evening of July 30th, 2025 Pamela Lee, writing on behalf of senior leadership, announces updated rules for Discuss via the Discuss list: the list, leadership maintains, is intended for bird care questions, foster coordination, volunteer support and sharing avian resources or light-hearted content like bird jokes. Off-topic posts, personal essays, criticism of veterinarians and any disrespectful behavior are prohibited. Violations may lead to suspension.

One volunteer replied with confusion, recalling that off-topic posts were once allowed as long as they were clearly labeled “OT” and not inappropriate. She apologizes if she broke any rules. Pam responds briefly, saying they should keep things simple and stay on topic with the birds.

The exchange reflects Mickaboo leadership’s ongoing effort to tighten control over internal communication. In light of recent scrutiny, they may have been reluctant to outright ban another volunteer for speaking up. Instead, as in the cases of Vincent and Melaine, they appear to have crafted a pretext that offered plausible deniability while concealing what was effectively an act of censorship. This time, however, the volunteer who authored the enrichment analysis did not remain silent and publicly pushed back.

Leadership Suppresses Discussion on Discuss

The author of the analyses asked via Discuss whether Mickaboo’s new restrictions on the Discuss list prohibited them from sharing the final parts of their enrichment assessment series—specifically the nutritional and social enrichment sections along with cost-effective recommendations for improving conure care.

Pam responded by stating that further discussion should be taken offline, signaling that the conversation was no longer welcome on the public forum. In a separate message, she confirmed that the enrichment posts were no longer considered appropriate for Discuss due to their “length” and the fact that they involve “vet evaluation.”

The volunteer, clearly disheartened, responded respectfully but critically. They expressed frustration that their effort to improve bird welfare was being blocked despite positive feedback from other volunteers. They asked whether their posts had upset a veterinary partner whose practices were indirectly evaluated and sought clarity about what harm had been caused if any. They also inquired about other venues where their assessments might be shared and whether a proposed online seminar would also be restricted.

Pam replied that the issue wasn’t censorship but appropriateness. She argued that Discuss isn’t the right place for content that critiques veterinarians, stating that the group relies on vet partners for its operations. She also said long analytical content may not be suited to the forum’s general audience and suggested that if the volunteer wanted to present their findings, they should explore doing so as a Mickaboo webinar instead—pending further offline discussion.

The volunteer pushed back again, reiterating that no one had objected to their previous posts and that censorship is typically a response to demonstrable harm. They pointed out that their assessments had been well-received and expressed disappointment that leadership’s only response was to prohibit discussion of their work rather than engage with it. They asked for a clear explanation of the alleged harm caused.

Instead of responding, Pam closed the exchange by confirming that the conversation was being moved offline.

This interaction reflects Mickaboo leadership’s discomfort with transparency and critique, particularly when it involves veterinary partners or boarding practices. Despite the volunteer’s respectful tone and their intention to improve conditions for the birds, leadership shut down further dialogue under the pretense of forum “appropriateness.” The decision to take the conversation offline and reroute it away from the community listserv serves to obscure internal dissent and suppress accountability. The volunteer’s repeated good-faith efforts to clarify their standing were met not with collaboration but with dismissal, reinforcing a pattern of defensive gatekeeping rather than open discourse.

More Volunteer Pushback on Censorship and Leadership Accountability

On July 31, 2025, another Mickaboo volunteer raised a question on the Discuss list about how to report concerns about administrators or other volunteers—especially for those who don’t have access to backchannel conversations. They pointed out that Discuss may be the only public space available for some volunteers to raise questions.

Michelle Yesney responded by acknowledging the need for a more formal, well-known process for raising issues privately, beyond just the existing Whistleblower channel. She encouraged volunteers to contact the Mickaboo Executive Committee by email, noting that she, Tammy and Pam currently hold executive authority.

In response, a second volunteer questioned the logic of directing concerns about leadership to leadership itself. They suggested appointing a neutral third party, since many volunteers would not feel safe bringing issues directly to the people involved.

Michelle replied that Discuss should remain a “birds-first” space where people feel safe and respected. She emphasized the importance of maintaining courtesy and avoiding anything that might feel like bullying. She also restated that the enrichment posts in question weren’t being censored but should be moved to another venue, such as a webinar or seminar, due to their length and critical content.

Another volunteer challenged this framing, stating clearly that it does feel like censorship. They defended the enrichment author’s objectivity and professionalism and emphasized that Discuss should remain a space for civil dialogue about bird welfare—even when that includes critical questions about vet practices. They voiced concern that leadership’s tone and decisions were suppressing transparency and discouraging participation from the wider volunteer base.

Michelle reiterated that Discuss must serve as a quick-access, inclusive channel for the broader volunteer community and warned that long analytical posts could overwhelm that purpose. She maintained that the decision was about forum function, not censorship.

This exchange once again captures growing tension between volunteers seeking transparency and reform, and a leadership group increasingly focused on controlling messaging. Volunteers expressed concern that leadership’s response to criticism—especially of vet care—was not just defensive, but exclusionary. The emphasis on moving “difficult” conversations offline or into private channels raised concerns about accountability and access. Despite leadership’s claims that speech isn’t being censored, multiple volunteers interpreted the restrictions as exactly that: a silencing of dissent in a public forum designed for open communication.

Why Mickaboo’s Censorship of the Discuss List Undermines Transparency and Reform

Mickaboo leadership has argued that detailed assessments of bird enrichment and care practices—including those concerning the FTB boarding facility—are too long, too analytical or too critical of veterinary partners to be appropriate for the Discuss list. They claim the issue is not censorship but forum suitability. This distinction is disingenuous. While the posts may be detailed, they are fact-based, relevant and deeply aligned with Mickaboo’s mission to improve bird welfare. Leadership’s efforts to sideline these conversations are not about format—they are about content.

The volunteer who authored these assessments is a subject-matter expert with experience in LEED environmental design and psychological well-being in captive parrots. Their observations were drawn directly from a video distributed by Mickaboo itself and were shared respectfully and constructively. The posts offered low-cost practical recommendations to improve care—precisely the kind of dialogue any transparent volunteer-driven rescue should welcome.

Instead, leadership redirected the conversation offline, labeled the content “prohibited” and insisted that critique of veterinary practices was inappropriate in a public forum. This mirrors past behavior detailed in the larger report: when volunteers raise concerns about care standards, financial practices or decision-making at the top, leadership responds not with engagement but with suppression, removal or retaliation. The cases of Vincent and Melaine follow this same pattern, as do the efforts to discredit the Chronicle article, silence whistleblowers and restrict open discussion within Mickaboo’s own communication channels.

Leadership’s claim that long posts “clog” Discuss falls apart under scrutiny. The enrichment series was shared in manageable clearly labeled installments. Far more disruptive to Discuss’s purpose is a culture where volunteers fear speaking honestly or asking questions—especially about the organization’s most vulnerable birds. What does it say about Mickaboo when advocating for better enrichment for long-term often non-releasable conures is treated as a disciplinary issue?

The suggestion that the assessments be moved to a webinar or alternate forum is not a solution. It’s a redirection designed to remove critical perspectives from public view, reinforcing leadership’s gatekeeping rather than fostering dialogue. Moreover, by admitting that “being critical of vets is not helpful,” leadership reveals its priority: preserving relationships and reputation, not addressing deficits in care. But when those vets oversee the most expensive long-term medical boarding cases in Mickaboo’s system, accountability is not optional—it is essential.

Volunteers deserve a transparent inclusive platform where evidence-based concerns about animal welfare can be raised and discussed. That was the original purpose of Discuss. Redefining it as a space only for surface-level questions and logistics erodes its value and marginalizes the very voices trying to improve the organization.

We call on Mickaboo leadership to stop silencing feedback, stop using “tone,” “length” or “forum appropriateness” as excuses for avoiding hard conversations and start engaging openly with the evidence presented by its own volunteers. The health and well-being of Mickaboo’s birds depend on it.