Summary

The 7/1/25 zoom meeting about Mickaboo’s management of wild flock conures offered little transparency nor revealed any efforts at meaningful reform. Leadership downplayed the cost of boarding these birds at For the Birds (FTB), though data show wild conures are three times more expensive than other birds at FTB and over ten times costlier than birds treated elsewhere. They dismissed humane euthanasia as “killing” and contradicted themselves by claiming wild conures are like pets while justifying their isolation due to special needs. Though leadership cited shared enrichment, they admitted each bird is kept alone in a small cage. They offered no cost comparisons for care or justification for prolonged, expensive treatments. Their remarks often reflected defensiveness, lack of empathy and resistance to oversight. Instead of addressing volunteer concerns, they focused on personal offense and made vague promises—further underscoring the inertia at the heart of Mickaboo’s crisis.

Full Article

The purpose of this meeting was to address Mickaboo’s ongoing management of the wild flock conures housed at For the Birds (FTB) and elsewhere. Unfortunately, leadership once again failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns raised, much less propose meaningful solutions.

Below are a few key takeaways from the meeting:

  • Mickaboo leadership states that the organization pays For the Birds (FTB) approximately $1,150 per month per wild flock conure for boarding and that these birds cost twice as much to care for as others in the system. However, this characterization significantly understates the true financial impact. As detailed in our financial review, nearly 30% of Mickaboo’s total veterinary expenses were allocated to just 36 wild flock conures at FTB during the two-year review period—an average of $10,890 per bird. In comparison, 46.5% of vet costs went toward 189 non-wild conures seen at FTB, averaging $3,259 per bird. This means the wild flock conures are roughly three times more expensive than other birds treated at FTB. Moreover, the average cost per bird at Mickaboo’s two other most frequently used veterinary clinics was significantly lower—just $1,209 and $935 respectively—representing less than one-tenth the cost of a wild conure.
  • Leadership repeatedly used the phrase “killing them” rather than referring to humane euthanasia—language that dismisses a commonly accepted, compassionate end-of-life option.
  • Leadership asserted that the wild flock birds are no different from pet parrots, but contradicted this by emphasizing that the wild conures benefit from being housed in a separate room, away from the general boarding population.
  • They also claimed that the wild parrots benefit from co-housing due to shared enrichment activities like eating, bathing and vocalizing together. Yet they acknowledged that, in practice, each bird is kept in a small cage alone, with no physical contact or opportunity to fly, citing safety concerns.
  • When questioned about cost, leadership simply stated that no cheaper medical boarding option is available, but provided no research, cost comparison or supporting data. There was no discussion of comparative expenses for procedures or medications, nor any mention of the extensive and costly use of lupron or hormonal implants administered by Dr. Van Sant.
  • They described the situation of the wild flock as highly unique due to bromethalin poisoning and neurological complications, but later contradicted themselves by stating that neurological issues are not unique to the San Francisco wild flock.
  • Regarding Boomer the macaw, leadership stated he should remain at FTB because “they like him and he likes them.” They also cited concerns about clostridia if he does not defecate regularly—despite the fact that clostridia is a common condition in disabled parrots and not a justification for permanent placement at a high-cost facility.
  • Leadership concluded with vague remarks that “information about working groups is coming soon.” However, Pam has consistently argued for a slow, cautious approach. We believe one of Mickaboo’s most pressing problems is not haste, but inertia.

Statements We Found Striking and Our Responses

  • “They just fall over a lot. They can eat on their own. It is not inherently painful to fall over a lot.” — Sarah L. One wonders how Sarah would feel if she were placed in a situation where she routinely lost balance and fell. The remark reveals a troubling lack of empathy for birds with neurological impairments.
  • “I am offended. There should be discussion and understanding.” — Tammy A. What Tammy appears to mean is that she hopes this “discussion” results in others adopting her viewpoint. Genuine dialogue requires openness—not just offense when challenged.
  • “It is so upsetting to have to hear out and address this.” — Sarah L. We refer leadership to our Letter to Leadership, which addresses this ongoing theme of perceived victimhood in the face of legitimate volunteer concerns.
  • “Dr. Van Sant values Mickaboo in a way that is hard to describe.” — Michelle Y. That may well be the case—but it is also worth noting that Mickaboo’s business represents a substantial, ongoing source of revenue for Dr. Van Sant’s practice.
  • “Ten years ago, we were attacked for releasing non-native birds in San Francisco in the SF Chronicle.” — Michelle Y. It is unclear how this is relevant to the current discussion. Deflecting to unrelated past controversies does nothing to address present-day concerns.
  • “We lost a tech person.” — Sarah L. To clarify: Mickaboo did not “lose” this person. Leadership terminated Vincent, who was instrumental in maintaining core systems.
  • “Thanks for giving us an opportunity to tell the truth.” — Tammy A. This implies that the material published on The Trouble with Mickaboo is false. Yet, to date, leadership has not identified a single document on the site as fabricated or inaccurate.

To be continued…

Leave a Reply