Summary

Mickaboo leadership’s reaction to the San Francisco Chronicle article has been predictably defensive—attacking the paper, denying the claims and trying to silence critics rather than address the concerns. Yet the article is fair and restrained, offering perspectives from both sides and avoiding sensationalism. It raises serious questions about long-term bird care, spending practices and transparency while giving leadership ample space to respond. However, instead of using the article as a chance for reflection, leadership doubled down on denial.

---

Full Article

See the article here: Bird rescue group saves SF wild parrots; but is it going too far?

Mickaboo leadership’s reaction to the San Francisco Chronicle’s article has been unsurprising: attacking the newspaper, claiming the article is full of lies and doubling down on efforts to suppress dissent rather than engage with the substance of the concerns raised.

However, based on this reaction, one has to wonder whether leadership even took the time to read the article. Overall, the Chronicle offers a fair and balanced account of the ongoing issues at Mickaboo. It includes detailed quotes and perspectives from both leadership and whistleblowers, and it presents the story in a way that is accessible to the public without sensationalizing the topic. 

By focusing on the case of Billy, a parrot hospitalized for seven years, the article draws attention to a specific example that illustrates broader concerns about long-term hospitalization and financial decision-making. It also brings in third-party voices, such as a parrot sanctuary director and an avian veterinarian, to help contextualize whether Mickaboo’s practices are within the norm. The article does not shy away from quoting Mickaboo’s leaders, who are given space to defend their positions and frame the controversy as a matter of differing values.

What Mickaboo’s leadership may not fully grasp is that the article could have been far more critical in tone and content. It was never intended as an investigative exposé, but rather as a general interest feature—and given the seriousness of the underlying concerns, the reporting remained notably restrained.

There are questions, for us, that remain unanswered. For instance, the article mentions that Mickaboo spends 74 percent of its veterinary budget at a single clinic, For the Birds, but does not investigate the nature of that relationship or whether the costs are justified. It touches on the fact that volunteers, even senior ones, were denied access to birds they were responsible for, but does not fully explore what that means for transparency, donor trust or organizational oversight. 

The article references whistleblower allegations of disproportionate spending and resistance to humane euthanasia but does not ask whether Mickaboo has adequate internal checks and balances. While it cites spending figures and policy statements, it avoids evaluating the group’s overall financial sustainability or whether its resource allocation aligns with its mission.

In sum, the article is not an attack. It is a thorough and often sympathetic piece of reporting that allows Mickaboo’s leadership to speak at length while still acknowledging the serious concerns raised by former and current volunteers. Leadership’s reaction to the article—framing it as unfair or malicious—is difficult to justify when the piece goes out of its way to remain evenhanded. 

Rather than use the article as an opportunity for introspection or dialogue, leadership appears, once again, more interested in suppressing dissent and preserving the status quo. The story raises questions worth answering, and it deserves to be read in full by anyone who cares about companion birds and the integrity of the organizations that serve them.