Summary

Mickaboo leadership’s response to the Chronicle article reveals more about their defensiveness than any substantive refutation. Framed as factual clarification, their statement largely attempts to downplay serious concerns and discredit whistleblowers. They deflect attention from long-term confinement and lack of placement plans for birds like Billy, misrepresent internal dissent as limited, and equate whistleblower allegations with theft—despite all access occurring while volunteers were still authorized. Leadership also dismisses concerns about transparency, donor trust and ethical care while offering no real answers about oversight or standards. Criticism of the Chronicle’s reporters further exposes their unwillingness to tolerate scrutiny. The Chronicle piece is a well-researched, balanced article developed over months, not an attack—and the leadership’s reaction only underscores the need for accountability.

---

Full Article

The day after the Chronicle article came out, leadership sent an email to their admin list that multiple sources within Mickaboo have shared. It was a list of changes that leadership demanded Chronicle editors make to the story, which leadership claimed were untrue. This is our analysis.

Mickaboo leadership’s response to the Chronicle article is revealing—not for what it corrects, but for what it attempts to deflect. While framed as a list of factual clarifications, much of it reads as an effort to downplay valid criticisms and silence dissent from within its own volunteer ranks.

1. Billy’s Condition and Quality of Life

In their list of complaints, penned by Sarah Lemarie, leadership insists Billy is not being “tube fed.” This is a distraction. What critics have raised is not whether Billy receives his nutrition via gavage, but whether he and other birds are being warehoused for years in a veterinary clinic with minimal enrichment and no meaningful plan for release or placement. He might be able to “climb cage bars,” as they claim, but this fact does does not alter the fundamental issue: Billy has spent over seven years confined to a small cage in a clinical environment, with no end in sight. This would be considered inadequate for any parrot, let alone a highly intelligent wild bird.

Leadership also takes issue with the idea that Billy is “rarely permitted visitors,” arguing that his room has other birds. But this ignores the real concern: that volunteers were explicitly prohibited from seeing him and the other very ill conures. Restricting access prevents oversight and does not inspire confidence in the transparency or ethics of his ongoing care.

Sarah frames the complaint as the emotional and poorly considered actions of a single individual—a characterization that appears to reflect projection more than objective analysis.

2. “Community Division”

Mickaboo leadership argues that because only “4 out of 680 individuals” spoke up, concerns about community division are exaggerated. But this framing deliberately misrepresents the power dynamics at play. Many longtime volunteers are afraid to speak out publicly due to retaliation, as evidenced by the expulsion of multiple critics. The number of people willing to risk removal does not reflect the number who share concerns, and their demand that we provide evidence of this claim is another attempt to uncover the identities of the rest of us.

3. Allegations of Cruelty

Leadership conflates the issue of cruelty with a simplistic comparison: “every caged bird in the nation” is in a cage, so it’s unfair to describe long-term confinement as cruel. This ignores the specific circumstances: some birds have been kept in clinical settings for years, with minimal enrichment, no foster placement efforts and no long-term plan. That is not standard rescue—it is institutionalization.

Additionally, the organization claims their care practices meet “expert-defined standards.” Yet they have refused oversight from board-certified avian veterinarians unaffiliated with FTB, and the medical records for many of these birds show prolonged treatment with questionable benefit. Critics are not challenging the general practice of keeping birds in cages—they are questioning the ethics of indefinite medical boarding without clear medical justification. It also raises an important question: who exactly are the experts responsible for defining Mickaboo’s standards of care, euthanasia policy and quality-of-life criteria? These guidelines were not established by independent authorities, but by the very individuals whose decisions to prolong the lives of severely compromised birds we view as inhumane.

4. Clinic Access

Leadership criticizes the Chronicle for not visiting FTB, omitting the fact that FTB has refused access to many visitors over the years, including internal volunteers. If the Chronicle canceled a visit, why not offer another opportunity—particularly if transparency is truly valued? Sharing a single video does not constitute adequate access, especially when it was selectively curated by the same people under scrutiny. The lack of open, third-party review remains one of the core concerns.

5. Alleged “Mailing List Abuse”

The claim that volunteers “stole” a mailing list is a serious accusation—but it’s also misleading. At no point did the whistleblowers “conspire” to access Mickaboo’s systems without authorization. All access occurred while Vincent was an active, authorized volunteer assisting with Mickaboo’s IT systems. He operated within the same platforms and permissions used by other coordinators and technical volunteers.

The email address in question was created during his tenure, as part of a contingency plan in the event they were removed from the organization—an outcome we anticipated due to the concerns we were uncovering. It was not used to access Mickaboo systems after their separation, nor did it serve as a vehicle for any unauthorized or malicious activity. In addition, the organization’s newsletter email list was downloaded while the whistleblowers were still active volunteers with legitimate access.

Raising legal threats in response to whistleblowing is a textbook example of retaliation. And to be clear, we are whistleblowers—regardless of whether the Chronicle formally used that term. Each of us has acted to bring forward credible, well-documented concerns about governance, financial practices and animal welfare. While some of us have chosen to remain anonymous, that decision reflects the very real history of retaliation within the organization—not a lack of integrity or conviction. Furthermore, in their response to initial questions by journalists, Mickaboo itself refers to us as whistleblowers by complaining we did not go through their newly minted, internal whistleblowing process.

6. Volunteer Donations

Mickaboo claims that “only one relatively new volunteer” threatened to withhold donations. Even if this were true, Leadership avoids addressing the real issue: when money is donated for one purpose (such as companion bird care), but is then used to indefinitely hospitalize wild birds without a long-term plan, it violates donor trust.

7. Factual Discrepancies and Tone

Leadership points to minor errors—like the flock size or the city of residence of a board member—as if they undermine the larger story. But these details are not central to the criticism. Instead, this nitpicking is used to discredit the entire article, while sidestepping the central issues: long-term boarding, lack of transparency, financial mismanagement and retaliatory behavior.

Final Note on Tone and Professionalism

Mickaboo’s leadership criticizes the Chronicle’s reporters for not working outside standard hours, for taking vacations and for allegedly failing to understand the community they were covering. They further accuse the journalists of neglecting their professional responsibility to rigorously assess the claims presented and evaluate their merit before publication. Yet this sort of personal grievance only underscores the defensiveness with which they’ve responded to all criticism. It is not the Chronicle’s job to do PR for Mickaboo—it is their job to ask difficult questions. That leadership is more outraged by the presence of scrutiny than by the underlying concerns says everything.

To suggest that this article fails to meet basic journalistic standards overlooks the extensive process behind its publication. The San Francisco Chronicle is a nationally respected outlet with a strong record of responsible reporting. This piece was developed over a period of three months, during which reporters conducted interviews, reviewed documents and sought responses from all parties involved. Like all investigative pieces of this nature, it underwent rigorous editorial oversight and legal vetting prior to publication.

Far from falling short of journalistic duty, the article reflects a deliberate and balanced attempt to examine complex issues that have provoked strong feelings within the community. That the reporting includes perspectives critical of Mickaboo does not indicate bias or carelessness—it reflects the very scrutiny and rigor the organization claims to value.