Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Follow jungle law Genesis fiasco bares a simple truth: Scranton unable to host wild animals at Nay Aug | Editorial | Kelly | thetimes-tribune.com - The Times-Tribune (http://scrantontimes.com/articles/2009/04/12/editorial/kelly/sc_times_trib.20090412.d.pg1.tt12perspective_s1.24 33862_cjk.txt - broken link)
WOW....Now thats right to the point. Can't really argue with that can you?
What about the possible questionavble finances of the GWC and the money that they supposedly have above and beyond what they claim and what the city has given them?
The GWC is crying poverty and yet they seem to have a surplus and that has yet to be discussed....I hope the Times can get into the financial aspect of the GWC so that the publiuc can be aware of the fact that the GWC is not on the rocks and is not broke, but yet seems to have money in place that they are not using?
Also I would like to see the history of any vet bills and care that these animals have recieved or need to recieve and the money spent on those bills.
Quote:
When she housed her animals on public property and accepted taxpayer money, however, she became accountable to the public, and not just the portion that wants the center to remain open.
While Ms. Miller claims total control over the animals, she and her supporters say the city should continue funding the center. This is the same pretzel logic that created this mess
The GWC or MIller might own the animals but everything else is taxpayer supported or taxpayer facilities so she is accountable to the public and the city and yet has done nothing to provide us with any transparency, this needs to to change. Her books and finances need to be looked at carefully and thoroughly. They have no right to hold in surplus any money given to them from the city to operate the facility........
Follow jungle law Genesis fiasco bares a simple truth: Scranton unable to host wild animals at Nay Aug | Editorial | Kelly | thetimes-tribune.com - The Times-Tribune (http://scrantontimes.com/articles/2009/04/12/editorial/kelly/sc_times_trib.20090412.d.pg1.tt12perspective_s1.24 33862_cjk.txt - broken link)
Thoughts?
I think it is a very thoughtful, well written column. I hope that all concerned will do the right thing: the animals should be transferred to modern sanctuaries where they can receive proper care that reflects current standards and knowledge of animal behavior and health. I am not saying that Kelly's column addresses every single issue that needs to be addressed in regard to the Genesis Wildlife Center, but as far as the care of the animals is concerned, it's an excellent column.
A couple comments before I address this particular editorial. I would like to draw your attention to the ramblings of one Haydn Scott Evans, otherwise known to us as 'Silverfocks' on city-data. Defining what I call a 'gruff' attitude, you can view some his writings in the April 11th editorial of the Times, as a comment to the Chris Kelly piece, and in response to another letter to the editor from April 10th, where he states ' I would like to thank Ms Kulik for her comment that the director of Genesis is "clueless". This coming from someone who has NO knowledge of Genesis or the care of unwanted animals. What you have said is untrue and cruel and an insight into the person you are.'
Rather, this is an insight into the kind of character you are, Mr. Evans, and also of the attitude which runs rampant at Genesis by those who call the shots.
Another snippet from the April 11th letter reveals this insight: 'I have brought a new day for Nay Aug Park, which was once a vacant eyesore. It now teems with happy people.' It is obvious that GWC pins the revitalization of Nay Aug squarely on their shoulders, not Doherty's.
It is also Mr. Evans who is choosing to scare children and the passing observer into believing that the animals will HAVE to be euthanized, and this is to be done at the request of the city. Doherty has done nothing but flatly deny that this is the case, and the only thought of euthanasia has come from the GWC staff themselves. Truly an awful thought. He has also taken every opportunity to proclaim that GWC was ASKED BY THE MAYOR to become part of Nay Aug, and this is still a point of contention for a few of us.
Now, in specific relation to today's editorial, I felt it was pretty fair all around, with a few exceptions. Kelly writes 'There are good people working hard at Genesis. They volunteer because they love the animals and genuinely believe they are serving the community.' This I also believe to be true, but it's the director and higher-ups that set the tone and are creating a bad environment. I don't feel this comment applies to them as much as it does the volunteers.
I've stated elsewhere that it's my personal belief and opinion that Miller and Co. is simply exploiting the animals for profit. 186k+ is just sitting in limbo, refusal to spay/neuter animals from what I hear, other funds just sitting in accounts, refusal to form a board of directors, etc., all while crying poverty. Word is also that GWC has stonewalled city repair crews on multiple occasions in the past, ensuring that the building will stay forever in a state of disrepair, overcrowded by intention, to make us all believe that the city just needs to kick in a few more bucks to solve the problem.
This is in part substantiated by the article, by Miller herself, who 'has been resistant to any help that comes with conditions, like signing a pledge not to take in any more big cats or share her authority with a board of directors. She has been adamant about retaining complete ownership and control of the animals.' It seems to me that the actions of GWC are solely for a personal or possibly just clumsy goal, never really having the best interest of the animals at heart.
I spoke as to Miller's and Evan's seemingly unfathomable desire to euthanize the animals should funding be cut, and this is again (and thankfully) addressed in the article by Kelly: 'Either through confusion or desperation, she has fed the misconception that the law requires her to kill the animals if the center closes. While some older animals may be euthanized if they can’t be relocated, such decisions will be Ms. Miller’s alone, unless the courts get involved.' It appears as though the courts WILL be involved, on Tuesday, to be exact. But will they also address the non-profit status of the GWC, and it's 186k+ surplus? Will they delve into concerns of proper care for the animals? Subpoena the USDA? Subpoena vet bills? Food invoices? Ms. Miller's credentials to care for these animals?
In contrast to Kelly's thoughts of taking the old Zoo building to the ground with heavy equipment, I really wish they would take the opportunity to still keep animals in some small way in Nay Aug Park. Something like a reptile and small mammal zoo would be ideal, and would allow the city to operate a low cost facility in a humane manner. If GWC was able to operate primarily on the 50k stipend from the city, why can't Scranton just run it themselves? Partnership with the State park system? Ideas for the old zoo are all over the internet like wildfire, but whatever the outcome, I think ALL concerned realize that for progress to occur, GWC, or at least it's directors, need to move on. The shell game is over, pack it up and go back to the poconos. Personally, I would like to see the 186k+ used to place the animals in accredited facilities, and any surplus afterward used to create an 'endowment' of sorts to make sure their next home is a stable one.
Last edited by scrantonluna; 04-12-2009 at 08:56 PM..
The GWC is crying poverty and yet they seem to have a surplus and that has yet to be discussed....I hope the Times can get into the financial aspect of the GWC so that the publiuc can be aware of the fact that the GWC is not on the rocks and is not broke, but yet seems to have money in place that they are not using?
Also I would like to see the history of any vet bills and care that these animals have recieved or need to recieve and the money spent on those bills.
I am also hoping to see some articles on the mysterious surplus. Any remaining positive public opinion should be squelched should this little gem come to light.
Vet bills, or lack thereof, are popping up as a topic of interest as well, wonder what the Times may find....
Exclusive: Genesis Wildlife Center animal park to close | News | thetimes-tribune.com - The Times-Tribune (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2009/04/14/news/doc49e515273c52d709910222.txt - broken link)
As you can read, the problem is only partly solved - Genesis will vacate the old zoo, but they are retaining ownership of the animals. What is to protect them now? Do they assume that if they retreat to the poconos, that they will be under less scrutiny? Truth is, they probably will be, and that the old zoo was probably a better facility than the one they will go back to.
Apparently Miller is still going on about operating expenses, and even said that the city gave her less than the 50k on occasion. Don't the 990 forms disprove this? If so, she lied under oath.
Also, it would appear as though Ms. and Dr. Miller are still married, yet why all of the horror stories as to Dr. Miller by GWC staff? Maybe legally seperated? Odd situation there as well.
In a quote from the DD site, we find this gem
Quote:
Miller told him she would euthanize before surrendering animals to abusive research labs if push came to shove.
We can only assume that she is serious, and who know what kind of mass genocide may occur on 'the farm' if things keep going south.
So, in the end, the city is without a zoo and the animals could actually be in a worse situation. Really can't say, I've never seen their pocono facility. Once again, the animals are the real victims here. The only hope is that Miller runs completely out of money, and that no exotic wildlife will ever again be exposed to her brand of 'love.'
Exclusive: Genesis Wildlife Center animal park to close | News | thetimes-tribune.com - The Times-Tribune (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2009/04/14/news/doc49e515273c52d709910222.txt - broken link)
As you can read, the problem is only partly solved - Genesis will vacate the old zoo, but they are retaining ownership of the animals. What is to protect them now? Do they assume that if they retreat to the poconos, that they will be under less scrutiny? Truth is, they probably will be, and that the old zoo was probably a better facility than the one they will go back to.
Apparently Miller is still going on about operating expenses, and even said that the city gave her less than the 50k on occasion. Don't the 990 forms disprove this? If so, she lied under oath.
Also, it would appear as though Ms. and Dr. Miller are still married, yet why all of the horror stories as to Dr. Miller by GWC staff? Maybe legally seperated? Odd situation there as well.
In a quote from the DD site, we find this gem We can only assume that she is serious, and who know what kind of mass genocide may occur on 'the farm' if things keep going south.
So, in the end, the city is without a zoo and the animals could actually be in a worse situation. Really can't say, I've never seen their pocono facility. Once again, the animals are the real victims here. The only hope is that Miller runs completely out of money, and that no exotic wildlife will ever again be exposed to her brand of 'love.'
Sad.
The entire situation is indeed sad, odd, and puzzling. I think the bottom line is that the USDA standards of animal care are simply not good enough, and until they are improved, there is only so much that can be done about situations like this one.
I have never seen the Pocono facility either. There are accredited sanctuaries that were willing to take the animals; I wish that Margaret Miller would have allowed the animals to be placed in well-funded, reputable sanctuaries. Sadly, for whatever reason(s), she apparently did not wish to work with the accredited sanctuaries.
I hope that the animals will receive proper care in the Poconos, and that if visitors are allowed at that facility, precautions will be taken to keep everyone safe.
Again, this is a very sad situation. And I hope that there will be no more animals kept in Nay Aug Park without proper planning and funding.
Exclusive: Genesis Wildlife Center animal park to close | News | thetimes-tribune.com - The Times-Tribune (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2009/04/14/news/doc49e515273c52d709910222.txt - broken link)
As you can read, the problem is only partly solved - Genesis will vacate the old zoo, but they are retaining ownership of the animals. What is to protect them now? Do they assume that if they retreat to the poconos, that they will be under less scrutiny? Truth is, they probably will be, and that the old zoo was probably a better facility than the one they will go back to.
Apparently Miller is still going on about operating expenses, and even said that the city gave her less than the 50k on occasion. Don't the 990 forms disprove this? If so, she lied under oath.
Also, it would appear as though Ms. and Dr. Miller are still married, yet why all of the horror stories as to Dr. Miller by GWC staff? Maybe legally seperated? Odd situation there as well.
In a quote from the DD site, we find this gem We can only assume that she is serious, and who know what kind of mass genocide may occur on 'the farm' if things keep going south.
So, in the end, the city is without a zoo and the animals could actually be in a worse situation. Really can't say, I've never seen their pocono facility. Once again, the animals are the real victims here. The only hope is that Miller runs completely out of money, and that no exotic wildlife will ever again be exposed to her brand of 'love.'
Sad.
Re the Form 990s: According to the above article:
"The city pays the utility bills for the building and contributes about $50,000 each year, which Ms. Miller has estimated pays for about 25 percent of the center’s operating expenses."
This statement would imply that the center's annual operating expenses are around $200,000, which does not appear to agree with what is in the Form 990s. Again, I am not an accountant--perhaps I am not interpreting the Form 990s correctly. Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for the apparent discrepancy. I wish I had the answers, but I do not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
