Skip to content

Phoenix – Part 1

October 16, 2009

The post for tonight has been gnawing at me….  it must be time to share.

I’ve decided to break this blog into two three parts.  Part 1 contains information I’ve be given regarding Phoenix’s past.  This also includes information regarding “For The Birds” zoo, located in Nampa, ID, which I found on the Internet. 

Part 2 will cover possible health concerns with Phoenix.

In Part 2 3, I will be covering some of Phoenix’s behaviors I have observed, and how both Phoenix and I are working through these issues. 

Part 1

Last November, I received a telephone call from Animals in Distress – the Ruth Melichar Bird Center (rehabilitation center) located in Boise, ID.  Earlier that month, I had been introduced to one of the center’s employees, and we had briefly talked “parrots.”  The person told me that they had received a cockatoo, and wondered if I would take it into my home.  I, of course, said yes.

That evening, I drove to the center to take a look at the parrot.  Oh, my!  The parrot was in a huge wired cage, used for raccoons, etc.  He had feathers only on his head, a few tail feathers and down.  This post contains pictures of Phoenix after he arrived at my home. 

The story told to me:  Stew (the cockatoo’s previous name – as he reminded the rescuer of a “stewing chicken”) had somehow (remember, I have only sketchy details) wound up at the “For The Birds” zoo, located in Nampa, ID.  “For The Birds” was eventually shut down.  The following are excerpts from court documents, which I located on the Internet.

———————————————————————————–

For The Birds, Inc., and XXXXXXXX have a moderate-sized business, with approximately 50 animals, including farm, wild, and exotic animals: goats, llamas, giraffe, a camel, a bear, tigers, a mountain lion, lemurs, eland, elk, prairie dogs, rabbits, cats, dogs, and a kangaroo. The gravity of For The Birds, Inc.’s and XXXXXX violations is great. The violations include repeated instances in which For The Birds, Inc., and XXXXXX knowingly exhibited animals without having a valid Animal Welfare Act license and continuing instances of failures by For The Birds, Inc., and XXXXXXXX to provide minimally-adequate veterinary care, food, water, and housing to animals and to handle animals carefully and in compliance with the Regulations and Standards (which failures have resulted in serious injuries and death to animals in For The Birds, Inc.’s and XXXXXXX’s custody). For The Birds, Inc., and XXXXXXX have continually failed to comply with the Regulations and Standards after having been repeatedly advised of deficiencies.

The recommendations of administrative officials charged with the responsibility for achieving the congressional purpose of the regulatory statute are highly relevant to any sanction to be imposed and are entitled to great weight in view of the experience gained by administrative officials during their day-to-day supervision of the regulated industry. In re S.S. Farms Linn County, Inc., 50 Agric. Dec. at 497. Complainant seeks assessment of a $28,050 civil penalty against For The Birds, Inc., and assessment of a $28,050 civil penalty against XXXXXXXX or 1 percent of the maximum civil penalty that Complainant asserts the Secretary of Agriculture may assess against For The Birds, Inc., and XXXXXXX. I find For The Birds, Inc., committed at least 1,545 violations of the Regulations and Standards and XXXXXXXXX committed at least 749 violations of the Regulations and Standards. For The Birds, Inc., and XXXXXXXX could be assessed a maximum civil penalty of $2,750 for each of their violations of the Regulations and Standards….

After examining all the relevant circumstances, in light of the United States Department of Agriculture’s sanction policy, and taking into account the requirements of section 19(b) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. § 2149(b)), the remedial purposes of the Animal Welfare Act, and the recommendations of the administrative officials, I conclude that a cease and desist order, assessment of a $28,050 civil penalty against For The Birds, Inc., and assessment of a $20,597 civil penalty against XXXXXXX.  …..

(The date of entry of the order was June 22, 2005.)

———————————————————————————–

The gentleman that “rescued” Stew from “For The Birds” zoo gave Stew to his mother, an animal lover.  According to the rehab center, Stew stayed in an outside aviary (with a tree in the middle of the enclosure) during the spring and summer months.  Stew was brought into an inside aviary during the fall and winter.  Stew spent his days relatively alone, and stayed with these people for approximately two years. 

Stew’s screaming, lunging at people, along with other negative behaviors, were the reasons Stew was taken to the rehab center.

Please see Phoenix (Part 2)

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: