The Trouble With Mickaboo

And what to do about it

Q&A With a Journalist

Introduction

A journalist from a major newspaper recently sent a list of questions, based on information we provided, to Mickaboo leadership and asked for their comments. Leadership responded with misinformation and evasions. We followed up with a detailed rebuttal documenting those falsehoods. We’ve summarized the questions here, and posted the two response documents. If Mickaboo leadership wishes to respond to our rebuttal, we are happy to post it here. 

Journalist’s Questions to Leadership

Investment in Wild Flock Conures

  1. How does the long-term care of wild flock conures at FTB, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, align with Mickaboo’s mission to rescue and house companion birds rather than wild birds?

  2. Wild conures made up 39% of FTB’s costs while comprising only 16% of the birds served. Additionally, half of these costs were spent on just 7 birds. Can you clarify how this spending aligns with your mission and priorities?

  3. Why have specific wild conures — such as Billy ($79,000 since 2018), Bowley ($79,500 since 2020), and Poppy ($56,000 since 2021) — remained at FTB for years? Is long-term hospitalization for wild conures consistent with Mickaboo’s goals?

  4. How does Mickaboo justify the prolonged and costly care of non-wild birds like Boomer, whose expenses total $105,000 since 2020?

Relationship with For the Birds (FTB)

  1. From 2022–2024, Mickaboo reportedly spent over $1 million at FTB, representing 76% of its annual expenses. Can you contextualize these figures and say a little about funding? Has it increased in recent years?

  2. Can you address concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving Tammy Azzaro, Mickaboo’s founder/president and a vet tech at FTB? Is this relationship disclosed to the board and stakeholders?1There was a misunderstanding with this concern. The conflict of interest is that board members have close personal ties to Van Sant, and Michelle Yesney’s daughter works for her. We have other concerns about Tammy’s role, which we discuss below.

  3. Why is FTB consistently used as the primary veterinary facility?

  4. Why have volunteers been denied access to birds housed at FTB over extended periods, and why is this policy different from that of other clinics like MCFB?

Euthanasia Practices

  1. Volunteers report that Mickaboo — and in particular, Tammy Azzaro — rarely authorizes euthanasia, even for severely disabled birds lacking quality of life. Can you respond to these concerns?

  2. In January 2024, Sarah stated that euthanasia is considered at the 3-month mark for birds with bromethalin poisoning. Can you clarify how consistently this policy is applied?

  3. How many birds have been euthanized at FTB over the past three years?

  4. If a 3-month policy is in place for severely ill birds, why has Billy, a wild conure, been boarded at FTB for nearly 7 years?

Mission Alignment and Strategic Alternatives

  1. Volunteers express concern that even if Mickaboo can afford ongoing medical care, it does not serve the birds’ welfare or the organization’s mission. What is your response to the suggestion that resources should instead go toward:

    • Building a sanctuary

    • Hiring behaviorists

    • Offering public education and training

    • Spinning off a separate organization focused solely on the wild conure flock?

Mickaboo Leadership’s Response to the Journalist

Before addressing2PDF of Mickaboo’s Response with our notations the list of concerns which you have provided, it is important to stress that in our community of 50-60 active admin volunteers who talk almost every day, none of these questions had been raised as a serious concern.

The only hotly debated topic that has arisen recently is the value/necessity of board certification for avian vets, which is not a concern listed in the allegations below. The people making these allegations have made incorrect interpretations of data, misunderstood the nature of bromethalin exposure, and misrepresented our mission, as our answers below demonstrate. We are disappointed that what appears to be a personal agenda has been taken into a public forum without first trying to engage in inquiry and constructive conversation within the organization.

Mickaboo has an established whistleblower policy that was created precisely for raising concerns of this nature. Given that the person or persons who contacted you did not use that policy, we will conduct a review ourselves, and share the findings with our Board of Directors and admin volunteer team. If it would be helpful for your reporting, we would be happy to share the results of our own internal review conducted by our compliance officer with our team when available.

Our activities, and expenses, are fully shared among our volunteers; nothing is hidden. The group who chose not to use this policy have immediately discredited themselves as not having the same core values as our team.

To ensure this point is clear, we would like to state that Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue is run entirely by volunteers and has no paid staff.

Mickaboo’s Mission Statement with regards to rescue of SF Wild Parrots

On the front page of our website, we enumerate how we meet our goals, point 2 of which is that we “Take in and rehabilitate injured or sick conures from the San Francisco “Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill” flock.” This could not be more clearly stated.

Additionally, as we state at https://mickaboo.org/about-us: “At Mickaboo, our underlying principle is that Every Bird Gets An Equal Chance. Once a bird is in our care, we provide all the medical and supportive care that s/he requires. We do not “triage” birds or spend more money on large species than small. We only euthanize a bird when s/he is suffering without the possibility of recovery. We provide hospice care for terminally ill birds who are not suffering.” 

Parrots are not domesticated pets, whether they were bred privately at home, by bird mills for pet store chains, or are escaped strays or from feral flocks formed in new habitats from escaped captive populations. They are all parrots, and Mickaboo gives every one of these birds an equal chance. Until now, nobody in our community has ever suggested that feral (or stray!) parrots should not be worthy of the same care as those surrendered to us from homes. Mickaboo has taken in sick and injured members of the SF Wild Parrot flock since 2003 and if you meet them – they are the same adaptable and smart species whether they are under our care as the result of illness, poisoning, or injury or continuing a life without interference out into the urban wilderness.

Common medical issues and treatment of SF Wild Parrots

  1. A small number of SF Wild Parrots with physical injuries are treated and then released back to the flock, or placed in foster care and made available for adoption if not releasable. Their treatment times are typically shorter.
  2. The majority of SF Wild Parrots that come into Mickaboo display signs of exposure to the rodent poison bromethalin. This is an uncommon issue for companion bird rescues, and has created a unique and costly challenge for us. Mickaboo chose to help fund the research that led to the identification and confirmation of bromethalin as the poisoning agent as a key step toward understanding and effectively addressing the issue, and we now know the following:
  3. Birds exposed to bromethalin have an approximately 50% survival rate in our experience. If they survive the initial three months after exposure, their condition often stabilizes.
  4. There is no way to test for bromethalin levels (or even presence) in a living bird. Therefore, birds suspected of bromethalin exposure are provided with medical support, and we wait to see if they decline or stabilize on their own timeline. During this time, a hospital stay is the only practical option given the care involved and the facilities available to us.
  5. The birds who do survive are less stable physically, and often require a modified environment (the specific modifications depend on the level of exposure). They do, however, have a measurable and meaningful quality of life (described in detail in #3 below). Mickaboo has done reviews regarding quality of life at several times for the birds who have stayed at For the Birds (FTB) for prolonged periods of time, and we also have a euthanasia policy3Euthanasia Policy specific to the SF wild parrots which is shared with FTB and would be shared with other vets as needed, and is also saved in our internal wiki system.

Quality of life for SF Wild Parrots in care

  1. The birds in hospital care are able to move, climb, eat by themselves, show an interest in each other, and enjoy opportunities to have time in the sun. Like their fostered/adopted and wild peers, they enjoy communal activities like synchronized vocalizing and bathing, and exhibit individual preferences about things like foods and toys. They enjoy fresh food daily and they do not require any invasive or painful procedures in order to maintain weight. The most severely impacted with GI issues have a special diet to help them maintain good GI motility.
  2. Some of them may periodically develop GI issues that require them to move into an incubator; they are treated as any critically ill avian patient would be and when/if treatment is effective they move back into the room dedicated to the wild parrots.

Expected outcomes for SF Wild Parrots

  1. SF Wild Parrots with treatable injuries or illness are treated and then released back to the flock. However, most wild flock intakes by Mickaboo are casualties of bromethalin exposure, not physical trauma. Their situation was so unique that we had to help fund a study to understand its nature.
  2. The concerns mention ‘significant recovery’; however this demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding how the surviving birds stabilize. As a neurotoxin, bromethalin exposure results in significant neurological damage.Therefore, markers of recovery include easily-perceived milestones such as the bird’s stability, motor control, ability to move safely, and enjoyment of a range of activities, as well as medical issues such as gastrointestinal tract motility. Depending on the level of exposure, the birds can stabilize and be cared for but they may need a modified set up of varying levels. A good example of this is Beale and Clay: https://youtu.be/51BQWPqgnoE?si=irKBHmrWzXEDUXl2&t=1097
  3. As the numbers at the end of this section show, Mickaboo has been able to adopt out over half of the SF Wild Parrots that survived their original intake issue and were not releasable. Many of these are bromethalin exposed birds who had a lower exposure, and are much easier to care for with very few accommodations.
  4. In our experience, it is hard to find foster homes that are able to care long term for those birds who require extra care, and housing with extensive modifications. Our organization has a set of very dedicated experienced homes who are the core team that have demonstrated the ability to safely care for these and other similarly-impaired birds.
  5. The wild parrot volunteer team has been, and remains, happy to discuss neurological damage, recovery, and care with anyone in the community who shows an interest.
  6. Total outcomes, over time: as of April 2025, 264 wild SF conures have come into Mickaboo since 2003.
    1. 48 have been released back to the wild flock after rehabilitation
    2. 97 passed away while in our care (and of those, 67 passed in the first 90 days)
    3. 67 have been adopted out to homes
    4. 39 are living in foster homes; many of these birds have special needs but can be well cared for by experienced foster parents
    5. 13 are in care at For The Birds
  7. Having invested in identifying the root cause of the issue (bromethalin) – Mickaboo has engaged with the city of San Francisco (Dr Chris Geiger, August 2019) to communicate our findings and discuss the use of bromethalin in SF.

Cost of treatment for birds in longer term care at For The Birds

  1. The medical boarding of birds is a standard rate, and it is the lowest available to us at this scale ($680 for 2 weeks, $480 for 2 weeks if no treatments).
  2. Where possible, we look for and engage lower cost alternatives; these are very hard to find at the same standard of care. Mickaboo has one avian veterinarian who volunteers for us and has 9 SF Wild Parrots in her care, some of whom need the same specialist care as those at FTB.
  3. Mickaboo spent $764k on medical expenses in CY2024. 77% of those costs were for care at FTB. See attached PDF for a full breakdown of our medical spending 2022-2024.4Mickaboo Medical Spending
  4. We have always been transparent about our veterinary spending; every online adoption fair and fundraising post mentions our $50k/month approx veterinary costs and we make every effort to minimize our overheads so that over 95% of our funds go towards medical care for the birds.
  5. Yes, subjectively, anyone asked might say that our annual spend is “a lot of money”. All of Mickaboo’s invoices are itemized and saved, and the care for each bird is as transparent in our systems as we are able to document. We do not put price tags or caps on the cost of care for any bird, regardless of species or size. The priority for us is the welfare of the bird, not the total running cost of any care required.
  6. If you have consulted other bird rescues with regards to subjective ‘acceptable costs’ for reference, we would urge you to consider the relative size and scale of each operation. Mickaboo has 113 active foster homes as of April 2025 caring for 456 birds. Mickaboo has a reputation for treating sick and injured birds, as we will always prioritize giving them care. Many local animal shelters and members of the public bring sick and injured birds to Mickaboo that they cannot afford to treat specifically because they are concerned the birds will not thrive or receive treatment in other situations.
  7. We understand that our significant veterinary costs are higher than they would be, if we had our own facility and a visiting veterinarian. However, the fixed costs involved in the overheads of that configuration would be a trade off that we believe would have not been viable for us over the 28+ years of our operation.

‘Disproportionate’ costs for SF Wild Parrots

  1. As all of the SF Wild Parrots come to us sick or injured, and the majority have neurological damage as a result of poisoning, yes their care is costly. As a general principle, Mickaboo prioritizes taking in the parrots most desperately in need, and these birds are undeniably sick or injured individuals who are definitely in need of urgent care and treatment. The care and the expense are consistent with our stated values and general operating principles.

Context for medical costs and funding

  1. Over 95% of our funds raised are put towards providing medical care for birds who need it; we strive to reduce all other overheads in order to make this possible.
  2. For The Birds provide the best medical boarding rate available to us.
  3. See point 15 for further comment regarding use of funds.

Tammy Azzaro’s professional role as an RVT and alleged conflict of interest 

  1. Tammy Azzaro has worked at For The Birds twice:
    1. 10/10/20 – 8/7/21, one day a week ii. 6/1/22 – 8/19/22, one day a week 
  2. Tammy worked at Bay Area Bird Hospital from 1994 until 2023, and is still on their contact list for cover on a one-off as-needed/as-available basis. 
  3. Tammy has worked at Wildwood Veterinary Hospital for several years and is currently one of two full-time staff there. 
  4. Tammy externed at Medical Center For Birds 
  5. Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue has used both Medical Center for Birds and Bay Area Bird and Exotics Hospital since our inception. 
  6. There are many years prior to 2020 (when Tammy first worked at FTB in any capacity) when Mickaboo’s largest veterinary expenditure was at FTB, due to the number of birds treated and cared for at this facility in a specific year. 
  7. All board members are aware that Tammy is a veterinary technician who works at multiple Bay Area avian vet offices. Mickaboo’s proportional spending has not changed significantly relative to Tammy’s place of work over time. Tammy’s experience is an invaluable asset to Mickaboo in helping us determine how to handle each new avian medical issue, including where to treat birds based on the symptoms, the facilities available at each vet, and to some extent location with respect to the foster home for potential follow-up visits. 
  8. It is worth noting that in the Greater SF Bay Area, there are very few dedicated avian veterinary offices that meet our standards for quality care, and we rely on all of them. They all either give us a rescue discount on their basic rates and fees, or make donations to us to support our work. We have held events and collaborated with multiple of them at various times in Mickaboo’s history, and not in alignment with Tammy’s place of work at that time.

‘Concerns’ about Billy, Bowley and Poppy’s length of stay

  1. It is always our goal that any bird brought to a hospital for treatment will ultimately find a placement in a home (with the exception of Wild Flock conures who are healthy enough to be released back to their flock, in which case that is the goal).
  2. These three birds are among the most strongly affected by bromethalin toxicity. Due to their risks of seizures and falling, they are safer in For The Birds’ care than in a foster home. We are satisfied that they enjoy a meaningful quality of life; as discussed in response 3.

Concerns about Boomer the Macaw; cared for at FTB since 2020

  1. Boomer is an incredibly special bird who has been through an immense amount of trauma, neglect, injury, and surgery. You can see the specialized set up that Boomer requires here: https://youtu.be/q8xXmj7B5gU?si=VNVsVhAbeX-DaI4b&t=327
  2. Since that presentation was made, his condition has advanced and he now additionally has clusters of seizures. His care is very high maintenance now, to the point where we have decided that it is appropriate and in his best interests to remain at FTB. We expect that if we attempted to place him – even in a highly experienced home – he would very quickly have a medical complication that would require him to return to the hospital. In fact, that was what ended his last foster placement.
  3. More information about Boomer’s original 2013 intake and initial medical issues (which have since become more complex) is here: https://mickaboo.org//newsletter/oct13/work/3Boomer.pdf

For The Birds as a “Go to” hospital

  1. As we teach in the Mickaboo basic bird care class, birds are prey animals who hide signs of illness and injury…until they can’t. Therefore, when our foster homes report signs of an illness or injury, we take it seriously. We determine where to take our avian patients based on urgency, location of patient and vet, availability of appointments, and lastly cost.
  2. We have found that FTB has the most capacity for unplanned appointments for urgent medical issues, and is our lowest-cost option for urgent care and medical boarding.
  3. We also regularly take birds to Medical Center for Birds, Wildwood Veterinary Hospital, and Dr Luehman (housecalls and emergency out of hours) for treatment. The location of the bird and the availability of appointments will determine the best option given each bird’s situation.
  4. We also use animal eye specialist hospitals on an as-needed basis upon referral.
  5. For the SF Wild Parrots, the size of our ‘flock’ at FTB has been decreasing over the last three years. We had as many as 20 SF Wild Parrots at FTB in May 2022. We have been working hard to reduce that number any time we can find qualified, more cost effective resources. It is a significant and very problematic man-made challenge, entirely created by rat poison, and not something that any other parrot rescue has had to face.

 Access to hospitalized birds at For The Birds vs other avian vet clinics

  1. As a rule, we do not expect our admin team to visit birds undergoing hospital treatment at any vet. Usually, veterinarians provide updates to us, and those can include photographs or video where it is helpful.
  2. In unusual circumstances, ‘visits’ with inpatient birds can be arranged although it effectively becomes an appointment at the vet, which takes up staff time, and should be done for a specific and justifiable reason.
  3. Prior to Covid19, relevant admin volunteers, including two members of the wild parrot team, were able to regularly visit Mickaboo birds who were in long-term care at FTB. Covid protocols restricted visitation (at FTB and elsewhere) significantly.
  4. Senior Mickaboo staff (Tammy Azzaro, Michelle Yesney, Sarah Lemarié) have been able to visit the longer term birds being cared for at FTB.
  5. We are not responsible for the ‘access policy’ of any avian veterinarian. Our observations are that there are many differences between each veterinarian clinic, from their billing frequency to the procedures, equipment, staffing levels, protocols and specialisations for certain treatments. We work with all the avian veterinarians where we have good outcomes for the birds’ treatment, and obviously do not have control over any of their business policies.
  6. As an organization, Mickaboo, rather than the foster home, takes responsibility for making treatment decisions for foster birds. These decisions are made by our medical director Tammy Azzaro, so that each bird benefits from her many years of experience in the avian medical field. Veterinarians may communicate primarily with Tammy and send updates to her. Information is then shared with relevant volunteers (e.g. administrative volunteers coordinating that bird species, and the foster home). The volunteers on species teams will change over time, and veterinary clinics often do not know who is the active volunteer contact for a certain species or bird. Therefore, Tammy as the medical director is a knowledgeable and consistent contact for them.

Euthanasia policy and authorization

  1. Mickaboo’s euthanasia policy has not changed; we have always agreed to euthanize birds who are suffering and have no possibility of recovery. This is stated on our ‘About Us’ page. Tammy regularly authorizes euthanasia in consultation with all of the vets we work with; however perhaps for obvious reasons it’s not something we regularly post to our community about and so it is not a very visible piece of Tammy’s work or a metric that most volunteers would be aware of.
  2. There are 16 documented cases of euthanasia since 2020 that took place across all the vets we work with; at least 8 of those were at For The Birds (Blu, Rockie, Delta, Nobby, Jayme, Jonah, Wee Wee).

Specific interest in euthanasia applied to SF Wild Parrots

  1. Euthanasia is fairly infrequent among the cohort of bromethalin-exposed birds. As mentioned in response 2, there is no test for bromethalin exposure in living birds. When we receive a bird exhibiting the neurological symptoms consistent with possible bromethalin poisoning, the course of action is to provide supportive medical care through the initial three months, and hope they can survive through this period. Approx 50% of exposed birds will survive with deficits but quality of life, and 50% will die, generally of a fatal seizure.
  2. The point of the statement about “considering euthanasia at the three-month mark” that Sarah made at the meeting with the SF Commission of Animal Control and Welfare from Jan. 2024 was meant to convey that we generally do not consider euthanasia for bromethalin-exposed SF Wild Parrots prior to the three month mark (assuming we can keep them comfortable) because we know that if they do survive the initial three months, they are more likely to survive long term, and can adapt to their new situation with experienced care and the company of their own species.
  3. If euthanasia does become necessary, Mickaboo has a specific euthanasia authorization agreement for the SF Wild Parrots at For The Birds, included at the end of this document. This is also saved in our internal wiki and of course, with FTB.
  4. The question as asked – how many wild conures have we euthanized at FTB in the last three years – incorrectly assumes that all of the sick wild conures have been treated there. However, they have not. So the answer to the question is 1 (Reed, on Oct 21, 2022). However, the full total of euthanized wild parrots in the last three years is five. Four of the wild parrots were cared for by our volunteer vet who we have collaborated with specifically to attempt to manage our SF Wild Parrot costs (Panama, Acorn, Merlin and Zellie).
  5. Going back to 2006, our system shows that we have opted to euthanize at least 25 wild SF Parrots based on their condition. See attached report.5Wild Parrots Euthanized since 2006

Views on using funds to build a sanctuary, hire behaviorists, provide classes, move SF Wild Parrot care to a ‘spinoff group’

  1. Firstly, Mickaboo does offer behavior advice, and free classes, that address a wide variety of common situations that many people caring for parrots are likely to encounter. Education is one of our core pillars and all 600+ members of our community have gone through our free bird care class. As a rescue, we have counselled many people who, rather than needing to surrender their birds, have been able to successfully keep them with the advice and encouragement of one of our knowledgeable volunteers.
  2. Building a sanctuary, or creating a whole new organization to care for the SF Parrots, would both be major undertakings that have significant costs, commitments and impacts of their own.
  3. We would encourage any volunteers who feel they would have the time, resources and commitment to execute either of those initiatives to reach out and discuss their proposal, as our evaluations of these ideas to date have not led us to conclude they are realistic for Mickaboo or in the best interests of all parties.
  4. There are many major considerations for both of these concepts that are too numerous to list; however for the sake of argument, foster-based rescue networks are generally able to rescue and help many more birds than sanctuaries. Mickaboo is not a sanctuary, and that is a different mission and goal than the one that we have publicly committed to. 
  5. For this group of self-identified volunteers to suggest that paying for care for ‘expensive’ birds such as Boomer and members of the SF Wild Flock is not within our mission statement and to also suggest that we should instead put our resources toward a sanctuary (which is definitely not within our mission statement) feels quite disingenuous. If this group was truly concerned with Mickaboo’s mission, they would not make multiple suggestions that breach it. A final note; obviously, Mickaboo has many additional policies and processes that do not pertain to these responses. We are happy to answer further questions and share more information as needed to demonstrate that we take our responsibilities to the birds, and our supporters, seriously.

Our Response to Leadership’s Claims

Mission Statement

In their 2025 Response to the journalist (hereafter referred to as Leadership’s Response), Mickaboo’s leadership claims that taking in and rehabilitating injured or sick conures from the San Francisco “Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill” flock is part of the organization’s mission. They assert that this is clearly stated on Mickaboo’s homepage and suggest that it affirms the legitimacy of their continued involvement with wild birds.

However, this claim does not hold up under scrutiny. The reference6PDF Record of Mickaboo’s Home Page, May 2025 to wild conures appears only on the homepage, buried beneath blog-style posts—not in a prominent or policy-setting location. Moreover, even that language refers specifically to intake and rehabilitation, not indefinite hospitalization or long-term institutional care in veterinary clinics.

More importantly, Mickaboo’s official mission statement—outlined in both its Organizational Structure and Policies Document (OSPD)7OSPD and its 2023 Bylaws8Bylaws PDF—makes no mention of wild conures or any form of wildlife rescue. There is also no reference to wild conures in the “About Us”9Mickaboo’s About Us Screenshot, April 2025 section of the website. These are the documents that define our organizational identity and guide our legal and operational responsibilities—not informal statements posted on a homepage.

For reference, this is the mission statement set forth in our bylaws:

  • To provide protection for those birds who, by no fault or choice of their own, cannot help themselves, and depend on humans for their care.
  • To ensure the highest quality of life for our companion birds.
  • To educate the bird owning public on the most current diet, health and general care information.

Feral V. Wild

In Leadership’s Response, they say “Until now, nobody in our community has ever suggested that feral (or stray!) parrots should not be worthy of the same care as those surrendered to us from homes.”

“Feral” is an interesting—and loaded—choice of words. Internally, there has been ongoing discussion about the proper terminology for the wild conures. In the Wild Conure Email Thread (WCET)10PDF of Wild Conure Email Thread from March 2024, Tammy refers to the word “wild” as subjective. Sarah agrees, stating: “It will help us if we can align on what we mean when using certain terms in this discussion re wild/feral/domestic.”

Sarah further emphasizes the need to distinguish between care standards for wildlife and for pet birds, saying: “It will also help for us to discuss quality of life and take more time to consider the differences between care and provision made for ‘pet birds’ vs wildlife, and the standards and ethics guidelines available for both scenarios.”

This distinction matters. In a December 5, 2024 Slack discussion (Wild Vs. Feral Slack Discussion),11Wild v. Feral Slack Discussion when the question of whether these birds should be described as wild or feral came up, consensus was reached that “wild” is the appropriate term. Feral refers to animals who have returned to an untamed state from domestication. Animals like cats and dogs, which are domesticated and then lost or abandoned, are called feral. But parrots are not domesticated animals—they are inherently wild. Referring to them as feral reflects a misunderstanding of their nature.

The term “stray” typically refers to escaped or abandoned pets, not free-living wild animals, and is being misapplied here. Using it in this context creates a misleading impression—that we’re arguing against helping escaped companion birds—when in fact our concern is specifically about the long-term captivity of truly wild animals from a self-sustaining urban flock. It’s a loaded term that blurs the line between domestic rescue and wildlife management, which are fundamentally different in purpose and practice.

It is also important to clarify that no one has suggested these wild birds are unworthy of care. Rather, the concern is about appropriateness and ethics. Mickaboo is not a licensed wildlife rehabilitation organization, and should not be making long-term care decisions for wild animals—especially decisions that treat them as companion pets. As Sarah herself stated at the Sep 2024 Board Meeting, “There’s wildlife care policies versus pet bird policies.” (see the WEBVTT-Board-Meeting-Transcript-9-5-24 [WEBVTT])12Sep 2024 Board Meeting Notes

As Sarah said in the WCET: There is a reason wildlife rehabilitation centers do not name wild patients or treat them as pets. Our identity as a companion bird rescue reflects a different set of assumptions, ethics and goals. These birds come from a wild flock. They did not choose captivity, and some are now being kept alive in conditions where they require assistance to defecate—a level of intervention that even advanced foster homes would struggle to maintain ethically or sustainably.

This is not just a matter of language. It is about standards of care, consent and the responsibilities we take on when we cross the line between pet rescue and wildlife management.

It’s generally considered cruel and unethical to keep wild animals as pets. This includes attempts to domesticate or re-release healthy birds, or the permanent hospitalization and supportive care of permanently injured birds. That’s a big part of the reason why the capture and import of wild parrots has been illegal for decades.

Quality of Life and Euthanasia

Leadership’s repeated emphasis on bromethalin poisoning in their response is a distraction. The cause of a bird’s debilitation—whether poisoning, injury, or illness—is ultimately irrelevant to the ethical question of long-term captivity. A debilitated bird is a debilitated bird. While it’s commendable that an epidemiological study identified the source of illness, it’s worth noting that though Mickaboo funded this research, the study failed to acknowledge their involvement. More importantly, its relevance is limited. One can also ask why a companion parrot rescue was funding a wildlife study in the first place.

Leadership claims to have conducted multiple quality-of-life reviews for these birds. If this is true, where are those assessments? When were they completed? Why haven’t they been shared with volunteers? The last known internal debate about whether to continue keeping these wild birds alive took place in September 2024 (see WEBVTT). Even then, key leaders, including Sarah, raised concerns about the ethics of continued hospitalization and questioned whether treating them with a pet treatment mindset was necessarily in their best interests. She noted that six of the birds currently housed at FTB were “really not in great shape,” sometimes have difficulty defecating, and were unlikely to survive outside of a veterinary setting. She also questioned whether continuing to treat them with a “pet treatment mindset” was truly in their best interest.

We’ll let Sarah state the issues with keeping these birds alive in her own words (from WCET):

I want to gently float the idea that we should carefully evaluate whether humane euthanasia is the correct option for 5/6 of the ‘severely debilitated’ bromethalin victims. Given their continuous need for medical support, and their limited ability to enjoy a quality of life that befits a wild parrot, there are questionable ethics in sustaining their lives for years on end in continuous ‘incarceration’ in an indoor environment with limited enrichment.  The fact that we have named them and supported them for up to 6 years risks making this an additionally emotional and personal decision that tests our capacity, compassion, and feelings of responsibility for the birds that we take into our care.  However, we do not ‘own’ them.. Our intervention is prolonging their quite limited existence. There are potentially 10, 15 years more of this ahead of them, or even more. Personally, I am not entirely comfortable still with this idea, but I am evaluating it and I think we should all evaluate it carefully, especially for this severely debilitated group. We have given them an extended period to recover, and they have not.  It is worth considering if they are truly happy in this environment and if it is an ethical approach.  It is a hard question to consider, but we can at least ask it now, and consider what a wildlife rehabilitation center would do when faced with these patients. We have processed them as pets that must be saved at all costs, but their home is a wild place where they would not survive.”

To ensure we avoid any misunderstanding, I’m specifically questioning whether we are being humane to the group of 5 that are prone to clostridium and require assistance defecating. It seems that unless they were in the constant care of a medical doctor, they would not survive very long. This means they are only alive because of medical intervention. It’s questionable that we could ever find a facility or a carer that can provide the high level of support that they are getting right now, which means the only options are FTB or nothing. This is Billy, Bartol, Bowley, Rico and Winston. “They are prone to fecal retention and clostridial overgrowth. They can require assistance defecating. We treat them proactively after one conure (Nino 1/2022) developed a fecal impaction of the colon and cloaca that completely obstructed his GI tract. Historically these birds were treated with oral Celebrex a COX 2 anti-inflammatoy. This treatment was eventually replaced with weekly injections of robenicoxib (Onsior), a long acting COX 2 veterinary drug. They are fed crushed pellets with applesauce, Miralax (an osmotic stool softener) and pancreatic enzymes. They get an assortment of fresh fruit and veggies as tolerated They receive antibiotics for clostridial infections when needed. Vitamin AD3E injections are given monthly. Most require regular beak and nail trims.”

 “The existence in that room is far from ‘normal’ – it’s very artificial and it should not be the permanent housing for any bird. If they cannot survive in any other setting I think we have to ask ourselves if that is fair to them. I understand that you are deeply against euthanasia, but to reject it as an option comes at cost to those who are existing on the edge of what they can adapt to – our hope was to succeed by placing them into foster homes who could facilitate their adaptation, socialise them, give them enrichment and engagement, and some level of agency. There is a subset of those birds for whom that is not going to be possible because their medical issues are not resolving. For them, we have an option that we are withholding. That is arguably more cruel.”

“Their hospital care has its limits in terms of quality of life—no out time, limited sunshine, limited toys and enrichment.”

In the same email thread, Tammy attempts to justify keeping the wild conures alive by stating, “It has been my impression in caring for them that they have a strong will to live and a feisty spirit. They are in clean, comfortable cages with fresh foods twice daily and a huge assortment of veggies and fruits every day. They are in a room together and do interact quite a bit with reliably timed morning and evening (loud and raucous!) calls. One could argue that they have better lives than some of our parrot fosters :-/”

Setting aside her final comment—an alarming admission about the state of our foster program—this reasoning is deeply problematic. How can she truly assess the subjective wellbeing of a wild bird in captivity, especially when behavioral cues in prey animals are so often misinterpreted? Michelle made a similar claim in a recent discuss email.13Happy-Outlook screenshot Both statements reflect a common misunderstanding: confusing a wild or injured bird’s instinct to mask suffering with genuine contentment. This is precisely the kind of anthropomorphic misreading we caution against in the Basic Bird Care class. Mistaking survival behavior for quality of life does not justify indefinite captivity.

Euthanasia

We’re not claiming that Mickaboo never euthanizes birds—we know they do. The issue is inconsistency and lack of oversight. While For the Birds has kept six severely debilitated wild conures alive for years without formal review or external input, another veterinarian appears to euthanize birds with little or no oversight or transparency.

This raises the fundamental question: who is making these decisions, and based on what criteria? The problem is not only the decisions themselves, but the gatekeeping around them. Leadership determines who is considered “experienced” and who is not, with applications to foster the wild conures routinely denied. The result is severe overcrowding and a system that concentrates control in the hands of a few while blocking others from participating in solutions.

Meanwhile, the care of these permanently hospitalized wild birds diverts substantial resources from companion bird rescue—the very mission Mickaboo was founded to serve.

In Sarah’s Slack response to why we’re keeping these birds alive (see Sarah’sSlackResponse WildConures),14Sarah’s Slack Response Re: Wild Conures she claims she raised the question of euthanasia for “one or two” of the wild conures—though in reality, five or six were under discussion. She states that they ultimately determined the birds still had a “quality of life” (though she doesn’t elaborate on just what that quality is) and expresses her personal hope that they will eventually “graduate” into foster care. But based on her own prior statements—both in the March 2024 email thread (WCET) and the September 2024 board meeting (WEBVTT)—she is well aware that such an outcome is unrealistic. This language appears to soften the truth: there is no viable plan to move these birds out of long-term institutional care.

In their response, Leadership has also misrepresented their euthanasia policy. While leadership now refers to a 2023 draft (see Euthanasia Policy), as recently as March 2024, Sarah acknowledged that no official policy had been finalized or shared. She wrote: “It also makes me think that at some point in the future (perhaps as a result of the group thinking we do here) we may want to consider drafting and publishing a euthanasia policy that we all agree on wrt wording, as we do sometimes get questions from the public, too, when they are considering surrendering birds to us.” (WCET)

This contradiction underscores the broader issue: policies are either undeveloped or applied selectively, and decisions with major ethical and financial implications are made without transparency, consistency or broad input from the volunteer base.

Cost of Treatment

We are not questioning the overall amount Mickaboo spends on veterinary care—we’re questioning how those funds are being allocated. While Mickaboo is transparent about the total spent on vet bills, there is little visibility into the specifics. Most invoices—aside from those from For the Birds—are not recorded in ASM, making it difficult for most volunteers to evaluate or compare costs across clinics. Likewise, few test results or necropsy reports are shared, leaving volunteers in the dark about actual treatment outcomes beyond whether a bird survived or died.

The amount spent at For the Birds is staggering. As Sarah herself said: “It adds insult to injury to me that I’m forced to fundraise to pay an extortionate amount to care for birds that have no viable future, and I’m not even allowed to ever see them again. If the board feels we need to do something about this, I’m doing something. It’s not pleasant which is why we’ve avoided it for years. ” (WCET)

Even Pam acknowledged the imbalance, noting in the transcript of the Sep 24 board meeting that “the funds spent there could be deployed toward happier circumstances, for other birds.” (WEBVTT)

These aren’t minor concerns—they go to the heart of organizational accountability. Volunteers are being asked to pour time, energy and money into a system that lacks transparency, limits accessb and channels disproportionate resources toward long-term, high-cost care for a small number of birds, many of whom are permanently institutionalized. That is not sustainable, and it is not aligned with Mickaboo’s mission.

Why We Use For The Birds and Other Vets

Recently, leadership has offered a range of shifting explanations for how veterinarians are selected. In a Slack discussion about avian board certification (Slack-Vet-Conversation),15Slack Vet Conversation Tammy stated: “We will continue to choose and recommend veterinarians who we have faith in, and those whose skill, knowledge and ethics meet our standards, boarded or not.” She also emphasized that a vet’s interest in birds is “a much bigger indicator of a positive outcome for our patients” than board certification.

Tammy later offered a more logistical explanation, stating in an email16Tammy’s Email: “There are quite a few factors that determine how much we may use one vet versus another, and it can have very little to do with superior care—some are more centrally located to the bulk of our medical volunteers  and shelters than others, some may have equipment that is needed for a specific case or other specialists nearby that can be more easily accessed, some are a bit more affordable and some are able to handle larger capacity for those needing medical boarding.”

In their response to the journalist, Leadership further claimed: “We determine where to take our avian patients based on urgency, location of patient and vet, availability of appointments and lastly cost. We have found that FTB has the most capacity for unplanned appointments for urgent medical issues, and is our lowest-cost option for urgent care and medical boarding.” (We would have to go back and do a thorough accounting of costs across clinics, but a cursory glance suggests this is not true. We’d like to refer readers to the Finance section of the detailed report).

Taken together, these justifications are inconsistent and contradictory. At times, leadership points to ethics and experience. At others, the focus shifts to location, scheduling or affordability. But cost-saving claims fall flat when confronted with the reality: For the Birds is by far the most expensive clinic in terms of cumulative spending. And if outcomes truly matter, then why is there no systematic tracking or reporting of those outcomes?

In short, the selection of veterinarians appears to be driven less by clearly defined, evidence-based standards and more by subjective preference and personal convenience, especially control—specifically, which vets allow Tammy  the most input. There’s concern among volunteers that one of the primary determinants may simply be compliance—that Dr. Van Sant is selected because she is willing to do whatever Tammy asks of her. As Sarah stated in the March 2024 email thread (WCET): “Dr. Van Sant is keeping them alive only because she understands that is what we want.”

There is a  lot of talk about Tammy’s experience as a vet tech. Tammy herself claims that every decision she makes—as president, medical director and RVT—is in the best interest of the birds. But that is precisely the problem. Tammy should not be making these decisions. While her experience as an RVT is not in question, she is not a veterinarian and certainly not an avian specialist. Her pattern of second-guessing veterinary professionals is why so many birds end up at FTB. No other clinic would keep birds hospitalized for years or subject them to so many ongoing tests, especially when there is no evidence that such intervention is successful.

This raises serious ethical red flags. In addition to the lack of clinical oversight and transparency, there are significant and unacknowledged conflicts of interest. Michelle Yesney and Dr. Van Sant are close personal friends, and Michelle’s daughter is employed at For the Birds. These relationships cast doubt on the objectivity of vet selection and raise questions about whether decisions are being made in the best interest of the birds—or based on personal alliances.

When an organization that claims to prioritize medical ethics and responsible stewardship of donor funds centralizes care through a single, high-cost provider with such close personal ties to leadership, scrutiny is not only reasonable—it’s necessary.

In their response, Leadership states that fewer wild conures have been brought to FTB over the past few years. In the Sep 2024 board meeting transcript, Sarah noted that this was because of Dr. Leuhman’s support. This is a development that is deeply concerning. Dr. Renee Leuhman has less avian experience than Dr. Van Sant and has reportedly been let go from at least two veterinary clinics. This is a serious issue we had previously chosen not to comment on publicly, but recent developments have revealed a broader pattern that can no longer be ignored.

In addition to her limited experience, Dr. Leuhman, acting for Mickaboo, is reportedly hatching eggs, raising chicks17Slack Conversation About Eggs and Babies and providing so-called “specialist” care to wild conures and other birds. It is unclear what qualifications or expertise support this type of treatment. This shift in vet usage does not represent an improvement in care quality or ethical standards—it simply relocates the problem to a different provider with even fewer credentials. 

Questionable Care

Mickaboo is currently grappling with serious care-related challenges driven by overcrowding, inconsistent policies, lack of preventive veterinary care and questionable treatment practices. The organization routinely accepts birds without securing foster homes, including birds not in urgent need. This has led to large numbers of birds kept in private homes and facilities such as FTB and the Bird Hotel, essentially turning us into a sanctuary. Overcrowding undermines socialization, increases disease risk and creates environments that compromise welfare.

Extended foster periods are another systemic problem. Nearly two-thirds of Mickaboo’s birds have been in care for over two years, with some birds remaining for a decade or longer. Rather than focusing on long-term placements, leadership often prioritizes new intakes.

Preventive veterinary care, despite being promoted in Mickaboo’s materials, is inconsistently provided. Citing a lack of affordability, leadership mostly denies fosters routine wellness exams, even when funded through donations meant to be allocated specifically to them. The approval process for veterinary care is slow and unclear. Meanwhile, a small group of birds at FTB receive excessive testing and treatments, contributing to financial imbalance and raising questions about necessity and oversight.

Concerns have also been raised about veterinary protocols at FTB recommended by Dr. Van Sant. These include the routine use of hormone treatments like Lupron and Deslorelin (an FDA-indexed drug not approved for birds), discouragement of enrichment items like chewable and shreddable toys, and questionable dietary recommendations. These practices often contradict current avian veterinary literature and behavioral science, resulting in over-medicalization and inadequate behavioral support.

Classes and Behavior Training

While leadership claims that “Mickaboo does offer behavior advice, and free classes, that address a wide variety of common situations that many people caring for parrots are likely to encounter,” this is a significant overstatement. In reality, there is only one class available—Basic Bird Care—and it suffers from serious structural and content-related issues that undermine its effectiveness.

The current class format lacks cohesion, includes numerous inaccuracies, and is unnecessarily long. Much of the material is either irrelevant, overly advanced for beginners, or poorly organized, making it difficult for participants to stay engaged. As a result, the class often fails to meet the practical needs of new or struggling bird guardians.

Equally unconvincing is the claim that “we have counselled many people who, rather than needing to surrender their birds, have been able to successfully keep them with the advice and encouragement of one of our knowledgeable volunteers.” While some individual efforts have certainly been well-intentioned, the idea that this constitutes a meaningful behavioral support program is simply not credible. Mickaboo has never had a coordinated or robust behavioral intervention system, and this kind of ad hoc advice is no substitute for a structured, expert-driven approach to parrot behavior and retention.

Sarah herself says, “I’ve never seen a behaviorist charge on our invoices before.”18No Behavior Charges Screenshot In another slack conversation19Cinnamon and Spice Sarah expresses shock at the fact that two cockatiels had been in foster care for twelve years (they have now been in foster care for 15 years). Another volunteer said that the bottom line was “lots of birds don’t get adopted because they just aren’t perfect enough. Too many birds in a foster home means that nobody gets attention and they turn practically feral.”20Cinnamon and Spice 2

Sarah responds by saying the situation has her thinking “about how to encourage foster homes to work on socializing birds more.” Katie Wunderlich chimes in and says “It is hard to do – a real time commitment.”

The truth is, Mickaboo does not provide adequate training to fosters and adopters to address behavioral challenges, particularly for complex species like African greys, Amazons, macaws and cockatoos. These birds are often placed with inadequately experienced individuals, leading to their return after behavioral issues arise. Targeted, evidence-based behavioral interventions, both reactively as well as proactively, would significantly aid in addressing these issues, but fosters who wish to help their birds must pay for their own behavioral consultations.

Many behavioral issues—such as feather plucking, screaming and aggression—develop gradually in response to chronic stress, boredom or unmet social needs. These problems are frequently avoidable with proactive measures such as proper socialization, enrichment and training from an early stage. However, few adopters or fosters are educated on these needs, and behavioral concerns are often addressed only after they become severe. Without early intervention, these behaviors can become entrenched, reducing the bird’s adoptability and overall welfare.

Mickaboo often prioritizes convenience for humans over what is best for the birds in its care. Rather than investing in behavioral training to address issues like feather picking or aggression, the organization frequently attributes these behaviors to hormones and turns to pharmacologic interventions such as Lupron injections or deslorelin implants. While these treatments may have valid applications in some cases, they are significantly more invasive and costly than behavioral approaches—and ultimately less effective in promoting long-term change.

In cases of egg-laying, for example, it is easier to break up bonded pairs and administer hormonal treatments than to implement environmental and behavioral modifications that would naturally reduce laying. This tendency reflects a broader pattern: relying on medical interventions rather than addressing the root causes of behavioral issues through changes in diet, environment and social structure.

Pharmacologic treatments like Lupron and deslorelin do suppress hormone production and, by extension, the behaviors associated with it—but only temporarily. These drugs do not help birds learn alternative, healthy behaviors. In fact, by masking the behaviors, they can make behavioral intervention more difficult, as trainers are unable to observe and work with the problem directly.

The issue stems, in part, from a lack of training in behavioral medicine. Most veterinary programs offer minimal instruction in applied behavioral analysis, leaving practitioners ill-equipped to manage behavior issues scientifically. Additionally, the cyclical nature of these treatments, which require ongoing administration, can inadvertently incentivize repeat procedures—especially when short-term results are interpreted as success.

Ultimately, while hormonal treatments may have a role in specific cases, overreliance on them reflects an incomplete understanding of avian behavioral health and a missed opportunity to support birds through more sustainable and humane methods. 

All this begs the question: what, exactly, are Mickaboo’s standards of care? What outcomes are considered positive? Is it acceptable to hospitalize a bird for years with no improvement? Are birds deprived of basic needs—such as space, sunshine and enrichment—viewed as success stories? These questions remain unanswered because there is no clear framework, no formal oversight, and no requirement for second opinions, even in prolonged or complex cases.

FTB continues to house long-term cases in conditions of permanent hospitalization, while Dr. Leuhman appears to euthanize birds freely, with no external review or formal process. These practices call into question the validity of the current vet selection process. Interest in birds may be commendable, but when it is used in place of board certification, independent oversight or demonstrable results, it becomes a weak and potentially harmful standard.

This is especially troubling given that the Medical Center for Birds (MCFB), a world-class avian facility, is within easy reach of most Mickaboo volunteers. This clinic routinely provides second opinions to owners who come from outside the area, or via teleconsultation, and is trusted by avian veterinarians worldwide. Yet Mickaboo has repeatedly failed to refer even its most challenging cases there. In fact, birds have been moved away from that facility and transferred to FTB, where their health often worsens. Tellingly, birds who deteriorated at FTB have shown marked improvement once removed from that environment.

Improvement On Leaving FTB

Another problem is Mickaboo’s disturbing neglect of challenging birds. Birds labeled as “damaged” or “aggressive” are often transferred to FTB, where they are effectively left and forgotten, receiving little to no effort toward focused efforts at rehabilitation or, ultimately, placement. These birds remain where they are, without an exit strategy, at significant costs to Mickaboo. 

Max, an African Grey, came to Mickaboo in September 2017. Over several months, he moved between multiple foster homes, none of which successfully addressed his needs. Labeled as irrevocably aggressive, he was transferred to FTB, where he remained until July 27, 2024.

In July 2024, a foster took Max in, despite warnings from FTB and Mickaboo leadership about his history of significant aggression. Described as unpredictable and quick to lunge, FTB claimed Max required a high level of caution during handling. He was only allowed out of his cage for routine examinations, which were conducted using a towel in the dark. The foster was asked to sign a waiver acknowledging these challenges.

Max’s foster has since officially adopted him, reporting that Max has shown no signs of aggression and is instead a gentle and affectionate companion who enjoys scritches and interaction, demonstrating the impact of a patient and understanding home

Max’s case underscores a critical gap in Mickaboo’s approach to handling “problem” birds. Once labeled aggressive, Max was sent to FTB and largely forgotten, despite the fact that behaviors like biting can often be mitigated with proper intervention and care.  

The “permanently damaged” greys are another example of this tendency. According to internal emails from 2020,21Internal Email Permanently Damaged Greys Dr. Van Sant classified Evie (and several other greys) as “permanently damaged,” citing a “severe endocrine disorder” resulting from “hormonal deterioration.” Dr. Van Sant reported that Evie remained in a perpetual hormonal state, leading to her placement in a cage without cup holders to further discourage nesting behaviors. It was claimed that when temporarily moved to another cage for cleaning, Evie immediately exhibited nesting behaviors by crawling into her food dish. Additionally, all materials that could be chewed or shredded were removed from her cage.

Dr. Van Sant also stated that Evie was prone to “excitement seizures” and was most comfortable at cooler ambient temperatures, becoming agitated and barbering when it was warmer.

Evie left FTB in September 2024 and was adopted a month later. By the time she left FTB, she had destroyed all of her feathers. Months later, she has exhibited no sign of seizures or issues with warm temperatures. She does not attempt to nest, despite having lots of paper and wood to shred and chew. With ample foraging opportunities and the undivided attention of someone who loves her, she is thriving. While she will likely never stop plucking entirely, now that she has other things to do, the behavior is significantly reduced. 

Both Max and Evie showed dramatic improvement after being removed from FTB and placed in supportive, enriching environments. An important aspect of these successful case outcomes appears to largely include their departure from the care and treatments at FTB and moving away from labeled constructs with a more targeted approach to the issues at hand.

Sarah herself said: “we have had other birds there for prolonged periods who plucked out of distress and were just given lupron – we weren’t even informed about it. We only knew about this because of *other staff flagging their concerns*. Once removed from that room, given more enrichment and space and a bird for company, the plucking stopped. No lupron required” (WCET).

Lack of Access to Birds at FTB

Volunteers have long been frustrated by the lack of transparency surrounding the care of birds at FTB, particularly when it comes to the most chronically ill and long-term cases. Sarah herself has repeatedly voiced frustration about the limited access to information and the difficulty of removing birds from the facility.

In the Wild Conure Email Thread (WCET), she wrote: “We have had almost zero updates on most of these most severely ill patients over that period of time. Dr. Van Sant has recently made it very clear that she has no plans to allow us to visit them in any capacity.”

In another Slack conversation about Gizmo the macaw,22Gizmo Update Slack she stated: “We don’t get updates about [Gizmo], and the last time we moved to remove them, we got an update out of the blue about a raw internal beak wound.”

She added: “Gizmo is stuck unless you can please negotiate with FTB, Tammy.” The same concerns were raised regarding other long-term cases: “Apollo and Gizmo are both in need of an update at FTB… also our THCs—I was told last month that none are ready for discharge, and I don’t believe that.”

Sarah summarized the broader issue bluntly: “FTB isn’t making it any easier by making them hard to remove—plus we can’t visit them. It’s frustrating.”

This pattern—where even board members or leadership figures are denied access to birds and must “negotiate” with FTB for updates—reflects a troubling lack of oversight and accountability. It underscores the systemic problems with continuing to centralize care, decision-making, and funding around a single, veterinary facility with no formal reporting requirements, no meaningful access for volunteers, and no established discharge planning.

Incidentally, Gizmo was moved to a foster home several months after the conversation in question—and what followed is revealing. He was taken to the Medical Center for Birds (MCFB) to address a persistent beak wound he had carried throughout his two-year stay at FTB, during which it was never properly resolved. Upon examination, Dr. Speer found decayed tissue and fluid in the wound, which tested positive for E. coli. He thoroughly cleaned and reshaped the beak to promote healthy keratin growth and prevent recurrence. While healing has been gradual, the infection is gone and the beak is finally improving.

This case underscores the risks of relying on a single, unchallenged provider and highlights the value of second opinions—especially from board-certified avian specialists. It raises an uncomfortable question: how many other birds have similar unresolved or mismanaged conditions simply because alternative care was never pursued?

Boomer

Sarah has claimed that Boomer had multiple health issues upon intake (which is true), but then claims his condition has deteriorated over time. She attributes his smelly, messy droppings to the tail surgery he underwent thirteen years ago and asserts that he is now nearly blind. However, Boomer was already almost completely blind when he entered Mickaboo’s care, and the tail surgery was performed at that time specifically because his droppings were excessively runny and foul-smelling. The procedure reduced his discomfort and resulted in more normal elimination. The symptoms only became problematic after Scott’s death, when Boomer was moved to a different foster. Where before Boomer had been seen at MCFB, his new foster took him to FTB, where he apparently has gone downhill.

Sarah’s suggestion that Boomer may no longer be a candidate for home care is reminiscent of the unsupported claim that the African greys in Dr. Van Sant’s care are “permanently damaged”—a conclusion based solely on Dr. Van Sant’s assertions, with no independent evaluation. Sarah also contends that Boomer requires a hospital setting due to intermittent seizures. Yet “seizures” are a common and often transient symptom observed in birds at FTB, one that frequently resolves after they are relocated.

This again begs the question: why hasn’t Boomer been seen for a second opinion?

Spinning off WCs

Mickaboo is currently operating in two ways that diverge significantly from its original mission. Specifically, we are taking in wild conures—animals that fall outside the scope of companion parrot rescue—and we are keeping birds in long-term veterinary boarding for years at a time. Both practices are incompatible with the mission and identity of a pet rescue organization.

Leadership has repeatedly acknowledged that Mickaboo is not well-positioned to provide long-term care for wild conures and has, on multiple occasions, floated the idea of creating a separate organization or finding external placements better suited to their needs.

In the WCET, Tammy wrote: “Moving forward, we need to devise an alternative plan for the incoming wild conures that could involve routing them through a responsible and educated wildlife center. As far as our existing flock currently at FTB’s, I’ve been hopeful for a long time now that we might have a dedicated group who could attempt to find alternative placement for them. None of us intended for them to be parked there so long.”

In another message, she added: “I wish I could say I have an alternative plan to offer that is practical or affordable but I don’t, other than amping up our efforts to find and cultivate a dedicated group who will actually follow through on identifying and securing care that will allow them a bit more of a normal conure life and at less cost to us.”

Tammy also noted: “That’s the reason we’ve been talking about cultivating a group to specifically look for placement and care for these special needs parrots. We have not had the time or bandwidth to fully investigate any potential options.”

Sarah and another volunteer echoed similar concerns. The volunteer wrote: “While they ARE parrots, these are wild birds, not surrendered or lost parrots raised by humans. I would like to see something like a protocol where if there’s an intake with bromethalin poisoning, and the case is determined to be severe, that we end their suffering sooner rather than later. That would seem to me more humane than letting them linger and hoping they recover.”

Sarah herself has explored potential partnerships, stating she had a meeting scheduled with the Randall Museum and was compiling a list of other organizations, such as CuriOdyssey, that house unreleasable wildlife. She acknowledged that most placement options would require a minimum level of mobility and robustness—criteria the most fragile five birds at FTB do not meet.

She admitted: “It has never been my understanding that we were bringing any of these wild flock birds to FTB with the expectation that they may end up living out their entire lives there. That is not what we want for them by my understanding. It is also not what wildlife rescue centers would do if faced with the same level of high critical care patients, as I understand it.”

Sarah also expressed discomfort with the broader contradiction in Mickaboo’s stance: “There is a dissonance in our stance that ‘parrots should remain wild and do not belong in cages’ if we are literally adopting out parrots that we received from the wild. It is a real dilemma.” She added that she would like to review wildlife rehabilitation standards and initiate contact with local rehab organizations, though she emphasized that such outreach should wait until group discussion has occurred.

Michelle similarly suggested that these conversations not be lost in day-to-day chaos, and encouraged setting up a dedicated group meeting to discuss conure placement strategy once other organizations’ positions have been better understood.

As recently as the September 2024 board meeting, Tammy admitted Mickaboo could no longer manage both domestic parrot rescue and the long-term care of wild conures, stating bluntly: “It’s just too much.” She reportedly expressed a hope that someone might create a separate organization for the wild conures—similar to how Palomacy spun off from Mickaboo to focus on doves and pigeons.

Despite these many acknowledgments of the problem and calls for action, no formal plan has been implemented. The result is that severely compromised wild birds remain indefinitely institutionalized, while volunteers and donors are left without clarity on how, when or if this situation will ever be resolved.

We support leadership’s past acknowledgments that this situation is unsustainable and believe it is time to act on those discussions. That is why we recommend creating a separate entity specifically to manage the care, placement, or end-of-life decisions for unreleasable wild conures. As leadership has repeatedly stated, this type of care requires a different framework—one grounded in wildlife rehabilitation ethics, not companion animal rescue. While this may be our current reality, it is not one Mickaboo was designed to handle, nor one it should continue to shoulder indefinitely

Sanctuary

At the same time, we must acknowledge another reality: Mickaboo is, in effect, operating as a sanctuary. Regardless of whether leadership formally recognizes it, we are housing numerous birds indefinitely. While transforming into a wildlife organization is not appropriate or feasible, aligning our structure and policies with the sanctuary model we are already operating under is essential. Doing so would provide clarity, improve accountability, and allow us to more responsibly manage resources and outcomes.

Whistleblower Policy

Recent updates to Mickaboo’s internal governance introduced a “Whistleblower Policy” page on the organization’s wiki in order to satisfy the requirements for achieving a higher score from a watchdog organization that rates nonprofits. While this is a good first step, it should have been addressed months or years ago. Furthermore, the person to whom complaints are directed is a long-term insider. Mickaboo’s leadership has demonstrated a preference for decisions that consolidate control and discourage questioning, which adds to the concern that this policy could be used to suppress meaningful change. 

From an organizational perspective, the distinction between internal and external compliance is significant. There is skepticism about whether this policy genuinely reflects a commitment to transparency and ethical governance or if it is intended to manage internal dissent and burnish Mickaboo’s public image while maintaining the status quo. Ultimately, any substantial reform is likely to come from external pressure rather than internal adjustments. It is for this reason that we have chosen to act outside of the organization.

About Those 50 or 60 Admins

We are genuinely curious who leadership believes is actively participating in decision-making. While the admins list includes approximately sixty names, this number is misleading. Names are rarely removed, even when individuals are no longer active—some are duplicates, some are deceased, and many have not engaged in years. Once inactive and duplicate entries are removed, the list realistically consists of about 40 people, with only 10 to 12 contributing to discussions on a regular basis.

Tammy, for instance, has posted only once in all of 2025—and that message was sent to shut down dissent. When a volunteer raised concerns about the lack of leadership and transparency, she was swiftly rebuked by Tammy, Sarah and Michelle.

The content of the admin list discussions is also revealing. There is little to no dialogue about strategic planning, policy development, or long-term organizational goals. Most messages are operational in nature—questions about whether a former foster should be allowed to adopt, notices about fundraising events, or occasional personal updates. In total, there are typically fewer than 15–20 posts per month.

This calls into question whether there is meaningful engagement in governance or any functioning leadership structure beyond a small, insular group.

Footnotes