Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary/Nay Aug Zoo UPDATE (Scranton, Pittston: refinance, loan)

[weluvpa]

Originally Posted by CHS89

PA population (2006 estimate) 12,440,621.

$10 million grant works out to less than $1 per person. I'm cool with that. It's not like anyone here is being asked to kick in a million of their own money. Although with all the carrying on by a few, one would think that they got a bill to do just that.

Also worth noting is that this money isn't even guaranteed. The state is not obligated to provide it, nor is that particular spending bill even on the Governor's desk to sign.

More putting the cart before the horse overreaction, if you ask me.

Don't you think that the state could better spend $10,000,000 in NEPA then by giving it to the city of Scranton for a zoo that we really don't even own. Sure we own the structure but Genesis could leave at anytime and then what. This is another example of using taxpayer monies for private companies or groups in order to garner votes from the public. Huge waste.

[CHS89]

Absolutely. There are probably hundreds of ways that $10M could be better spent. Two thousand dollars cash for each resident is one way that I can think of. Free tanks of gas. Pizza parties. Pony rides.

However, this is earmarked for the zoo, or sanctuary, or whatever someone wants to call it. Face it, any of this wish list money can be spent in the most benevolent, philanthropic, and responsible way ever, and people will still complain about it. I guess I'm just not going to live my life finding fault in everything under the sun, and constantly imagining worst case scenarios. If that makes you happy, though, then more power to you. I just think life's too short for that sort of futility. Who knows, maybe whatever is potentially done with the zoo will turn out to be (*GASP*) a decent move over teh long term. Dare we dream...

[weluvpa]

You feeling alright?

[CHS89]

Fine. You?

[FightinPhils]

Jeet yet?

No, Jew?

[NYRangers 2008]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

Don't you think that the state could better spend $10,000,000 in NEPA then by giving it to the city of Scranton for a zoo that we really don't even own. Sure we own the structure but Genesis could leave at anytime and then what. This is another example of using taxpayer monies for private companies or groups in order to garner votes from the public. Huge waste.

I agree Dan. I can think of many different things that the money could be used for instead. Like you said, if the city owned the zoo, then it wouldn't be so bad because at least it would be investing into the city somewhat. Another example of wasteful spending in NEPA.

[LivinginScranton]

Originally Posted by mbs7

Scrantonluna: I just wanted to add that, while I disagree with your approach to this problem, it really seems as if your heart is in the right place. Also, it's clear that you've been doing a lot more than just talking about the problem and I can certainly respect that.

I had read that the center had received alot of money a few years ago. Now whether it was received or not is another story. The residents of the center need more space. Animals live in the moment even and adapt to their environments which I am guessing is the case for what I have seen at the Center.

As much as us animal lovers would love to continue to see these incredible creatures my opinion is to relocate animals that the public would want to have more of an interaction with and clinics to learn about them so if they came across a familiar about to be endangered animal they would know where to go or what to do. Squirrels, Exotic Birds, hurt animals, and animal care clinics that could bring in income and education to the community.

I am sad to say this. The center does not bring that kind of message to the public except it smells in here. I am out of here.

It doesn't bother me that there is a org operating in the City building actually it is better that way but a 1M dollar building for an org that can't take care of what it has now is questionable in my mind if they can do it in a larger facility?
However I do wish them luck and that they can continue to do what is best for the Center and its animals.
Does anyone know if there is supposed to be a license to have the Large Cats? I was always curious of that?

[mbs7]

[quote=LivinginScranton;3650401
Does anyone know if there is supposed to be a license to have the Large Cats? I was always curious of that?[/quote]


It is my understanding that the Genesis Wildlife Center has a USDA exhibitor's license which allows them to own and exhibit their animals (including the big cats). I know the Genesis Wildlife Center passed a USDA inspection. Unfortunately, the USDA standards are quite minimal--it is the opinion of many people (myself included) that the USDA standards should be updated and improved. Some of the zoos in this country adhere to more rigorous standards--those set by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The AZA accredits its member institutions, providing a much higher-quality inspection than that required by law. If Scranton is going to have an animal facility of some sort, they really should, I think, be aiming for one that could meet the AZA standards. (Even the AZA standards have some problems, but they are much, much better than those set by the USDA.)

As I have noted here in various Genesis Wildlife Center discussions in the past, the big cats at the center are living in very substandard conditions. According to the Times-Tribune archives, at least one of these cats was acquired as a cub. I have some grave concerns about the somewhat cavalier attitude displayed by some of the GWC's staff toward the big cats (e.g. I saw one staff member petting the tiger while the cougars prowled around in the background--and this was on a hot, humid, airless day when no one was in a very good mood). If these big cats feel frightened or threatened, they may suddenly stop being "tame" and start being dangerous.

[unikrn69]

Just so you know the center is operated on donations only the tax payer's money does not go to the center and if it were not for the center being there then the park would still be a haven for drug dealers and prostitutes and the homeless. Maybe if the tax payers of Scranton were to pull together the center could be a beutiful place for the animals. So people should stop knocking the center down and start building it up to where it could be. The director who takes care of those animals has a heart so much so that when one of her animals pass away she has a cerimony for them. Can the people of Scranton say they care that much for thier pets to show that thier life was meaningful? Maybe some can but not the ones who put Margaret down for careing. They have no heart they would rather you kill the animals then to feed and house them.

[mbs7]

Originally Posted by unikrn69

Just so you know the center is operated on donations only the tax payer's money does not go to the center and if it were not for the center being there then the park would still be a haven for drug dealers and prostitutes and the homeless. Maybe if the tax payers of Scranton were to pull together the center could be a beutiful place for the animals. So people should stop knocking the center down and start building it up to where it could be. The director who takes care of those animals has a heart so much so that when one of her animals pass away she has a cerimony for them. Can the people of Scranton say they care that much for thier pets to show that thier life was meaningful? Maybe some can but not the ones who put Margaret down for careing. They have no heart they would rather you kill the animals then to feed and house them.

Unikrn69--I'm having a little trouble trying to figure out the exact meaning of your first sentence. But I think you're saying that the center receives no funding from the taxpayers. That is incorrect. In fact, the center has received a **significant** portion of its funding from the taxpayers.

Millions of dollars would be needed to build and maintain a truly adequate facility for the large number of exotic animals at the center; on top of that, a large annual operating budget--probably hundreds of thousands--would be needed. The donors and taxpayers of Scranton cannot pay for all of that on their own. The sort of serious money needed to fix this problem would require, first and foremost, that the center be managed in a manner that would allow it to compete for grant money. An excellent first step in that process would be working toward AZA accreditation, and the current management seems unable or unwilling to make the necessary changes. I have no problem with folks having funerals for animals that have passed away. However, having funerals is no substitute for giving the animals adequate care while they're still alive.

Re the prostitutes and drug dealers: the entire park has been cleaned up a good deal, so I'm not sure why you're crediting the GWC alone for any improvements that have taken place, particularly since the GWC stands out as the one thing in all of Nay Aug that is in most dire need of improvement.

By the way, I am 100% certain that there are many, many people in Scranton who do indeed care a great deal for their pets. I no longer live in Scranton, but I certainly care deeply for my own pets and I have a relative who lives in Scranton who still mourns a cat that died almost two years ago. The cat was a stray that my aunt took in. When the cat died, my aunt had her own little ceremony. But what is much more important is that for 11 years my aunt gave the cat a very nice home. The cat had the run of my aunt's house and, with supervision, was allowed to play in my aunt's fenced-in yard. The cat was given appropriate food and medical care, as well as loving attention and appropriate enrichment items. How nice it would be if the management at Genesis had a record as good as my aunt's! My aunt is certainly an animal lover, but she cannot stand the GWC. She hates to see the animals living in such poor conditions and she has characterized the GWC as "an accident waiting to happen." My aunt, myself, and many other animal lovers, are not putting Margaret Miller down for "caring." Rather, we are extremely frustrated with Ms. Miller because she is either unwilling or unable to recognize that she is providing outmoded and inadequate care for the GWC animals. Adding two tiger cubs to a severely overcrowded facility and allowing the lemurs to breed are just two examples of Ms. Miller's poor judgment. Watching her make these poor decisions, it is very tempting to conclude that Ms. Miller has a great need to be surrounded by these animals and that she tends to put her own desires ahead of the real needs of the animals. That isn't saintly--it's selfish.

I'm sorry if the above comments seem harsh, Unikrn69. They are directed not so much at you as at the management of the GWC. I think it's quite possible that your heart is in the right place. But I think you should really educate yourself about modern standards of animal care and about the realities of funding at the center. Over and over again we've seen people defending the center who place all of the blame for its problems somewhere else: it's always someone else's fault--never Margaret Miller's. It's really striking. That attitude is, I suspect, a very large reason for the center's disappointing state.