I'm guessing that the lucky birds who went through this . . . program would end up at Mickaboo anyway, where they could get veterinary care and proper placement, and that most of the rest would end up as breeders or dead. John made a good point about their adoption agreement (if you want to call it that) being little more than an indemnification of AFA, absolving them from all responsibility for the birds' well being, etc. --VH -----Original Message----- From: media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Karen Watkins Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:41 PM To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team' Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Fwd: Answers to questions regarding the AFA proposal for re-homing birds/ from Mary Ellen LePage I agree. The comment about euthanizing birds with costly, I mean, serious viral diseases bothers me. I'm so proud of Mickaboo's work with birds that have chronic illnesses. This proposal is hardly a step ahead of current livestock practices. -----Original Message----- From: media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Vincent J. Hrovat Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:23 PM To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team' Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Fwd: Answers to questions regarding the AFA proposal for re-homing birds/ from Mary Ellen LePage
we have funds lying around for each bird we have in foster care
First she implies. Incorrectly, that we give "all" of our birds medical care, and that her alternative would just be to give care to "birds that really need it." Then she talks about euthanizing, especially birds with "serious viral diseases." Pretty sloppy and poorly thought out. If they think that we're needlessly throwing money to veterinarians then I am guessing that their criteria for euthanasia is cost-based and their threshold is pretty low -- as in, if a bird needs ANY care before it can be adopted, kill it. --VH