Genesis Wildlife Center: Safety & Finances (new info) (Scranton: tax, living in)

[mbs7]

The GWC's finances in 2005:

While looking into this matter I found two articles on the GWC's finances that ran in 2005 in the Times/Tribune. The first article, "Wildlife Center faces financial problems," can be read at:

Wildlife Center faces financial problems | Local News | thetimes-tribune.com - The Times-Tribune

The second article, "Mayor shifts $20G from cultural center to wildlife center," can be read at:

Mayor shifts $20G from cultural center to wildlife center | Local News | thetimes-tribune.com - The Times-Tribune

According to the GWC's 2005 Form 990-EZ, the GWC began the year with $16,451 in assets in the form of "Cash, savings, and investments," and ended the year with assets in the form of "Cash, savings, and investments" of $50,507. Now, to be fair, the GWC may have had cash flow problems in the middle of the year, because Ms. Miller had trouble accessing city funds. But the bottom line seems to be that in 2005, a year in which additional city funds for the GWC were scraped together by taking money from other projects, the GWC seems to have begun the year with some surplus funding left over from the previous year, and ended the year with an even more substantial surplus.

Again, it is possible that I am somehow misreading the 2005 Form 990; if anyone thinks that is the case, please let me know.

[scrantonluna]

I really shouldn't poke fun, it's an awful situation, especially for the animals.

I would have to think that if the city is completely unaware of the surplus Genesis is stockpiling, and it seems that they could most likely operate WITHOUT city support. We may see a change of heart if the right people come across this thread. The city is really the other victim in this story...

[weluvpa]

Originally Posted by scrantonluna

The city is really the other victim in this story...

Hows that kool-aid taste? The city is responsible for this whole mess to begin with. If Doherty didn't need to have such a photo-op at Nay Aug in the last election we wouldn't be here right now. REMEMBER DOHERTY is the one that INVITED the GWC to Scranton. Victim my a$$.

[scrantonluna]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

Hows that kool-aid taste? The city is responsible for this whole mess to begin with. If Doherty didn't need to have such a photo-op at Nay Aug in the last election we wouldn't be here right now. REMEMBER DOHERTY is the one that INVITED the GWC to Scranton. Victim my a$$.

Ok, everyone ignore, nothing to see here....

Yes, we all know, the sky IS falling, Doherty is the root of all evil, blah, blah, blah

I see your dohertydeceit post count is rising, what, nothing to do here now that you've put Paul down for the bazillionth time?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled Genesis thread

[weluvpa]

It rose by a whole 2 posts in the last few months wow and considering I was slamming the anti-doherty crowd over there I'll take your kool-aid slugging childish comment as a compliment...

I like the fact that your little frustrated fit tipped your hat that your monitoring my posts...STALKER...FREAK

Whats next? My house? Just be careful......


Your a fool if you think for one minute that the city is the victim here, but I'm sure based on your sediment that will be the doherty hump excuse for the GWC....

I could hear it now....."Oh the GWC took advantage of the city....Oh the mayor was just trying to help........Oh they had no idea what the GWC was up to....." I'm sure thats all probably pretty close to what we'll see in the Times over the next few months I'm sure....

Please give me a break.

I guess you have been picked as the Doherty cheerleader for CD during the election?

Just don't sit here and pretend that the city has had nothing to do with the GWC or its condition when the city admin, specifically the mayor, invited this rag tag shelter into our park.....The city admin. also pushed the GWC to OBTAIN those big cats as well. PR photo-op gone bad and now the GWC is stuck with those cats.

[lialleycat]

It sounds like the GWC could really be a nice place if it were managed properly. If it were managed properly, it would be a boon for the city and would be a great place for school trips and for the community to learn about animals. Too bad I'm not retired. I'd offer my services to run it. But alas, I must draw a salary, so I'm looking for a similar position with a salary. I loved the environmental education part of my old job. Unfortunately, we didn't have city sponsorship and our large corporate donors are no longer there or no longer doing charitable giving.

[scrantonluna]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

It rose by a whole 2 posts in the last few months wow and considering I was slamming the anti-doherty crowd over there I'll take your kool-aid slugging childish comment as a compliment...

I like the fact that your little frustrated fit tipped your hat that your monitoring my posts...STALKER...FREAK

Whats next? My house? Just be careful......


Your a fool if you think for one minute that the city is the victim here, but I'm sure based on your sediment that will be the doherty hump excuse for the GWC....

I could hear it now....."Oh the GWC took advantage of the city....Oh the mayor was just trying to help........Oh they had no idea what the GWC was up to....." I'm sure thats all probably pretty close to what we'll see in the Times over the next few months I'm sure....

Please give me a break.

I guess you have been picked as the Doherty cheerleader for CD during the election?

Just don't sit here and pretend that the city has had nothing to do with the GWC or its condition when the city admin, specifically the mayor, invited this rag tag shelter into our park.....The city admin. also pushed the GWC to OBTAIN those big cats as well. PR photo-op gone bad and now the GWC is stuck with those cats.

Just noticed you can't get along with those people over there, either. Why would I come to your house? It's in a flood zone. Good thing you have the kayaks. But I'm sure you already know my sediments...

[mbs7]

Originally Posted by lialleycat

It sounds like the GWC could really be a nice place if it were managed properly. If it were managed properly, it would be a boon for the city and would be a great place for school trips and for the community to learn about animals. Too bad I'm not retired. I'd offer my services to run it. But alas, I must draw a salary, so I'm looking for a similar position with a salary. I loved the environmental education part of my old job. Unfortunately, we didn't have city sponsorship and our large corporate donors are no longer there or no longer doing charitable giving.

Months and months ago, when I first started looking at this problem, I thought that with the proper help the GWC might indeed be made into a "really nice place." And perhaps that is the case, but I doubt it. As far as I can tell, Margaret Miller has neither the expertise nor the attitude required to make the GWC an asset to the city and a good place for the animals to live: she has crowded far too many animals into a small, substandard facility (there are so many animals that the place always smells horrible); she feeds the animals inappropriate items like marshmallows, soda, and candy; she gives the animals inappropriate "toys" and treats them more like personal pets than captive wild animals; she seems to either not know or not care about the need to quarantine sick animals; she puts herself and others at risk by failing to follow proper safety procedures; she claims that the GWC is a "sanctuary" for animals that no one else wants, yet I know of an instance in which she was offered a chance to move an animal to a more appropriate home and she refused in no uncertain terms; her public relations efforts leave a great deal to be desired; her financial records are, at best, very sloppy.

Unfortunately, the animals belong to the GWC and are under Ms. Miller's control and that means there's only so much that anyone can do to try to improve things. I was inspired to start yet another thread on this subject in part because of the recent letter to the Times/Tribune about the experience of a well-meaning person who went to the GWC intending to volunteer but left because she felt (probably correctly) that the GWC was not safe.

Personally, I think that a small, properly managed animal facility of some sort (a zoo or a wildlife center or an animal sanctuary) would be an asset to the city and would provide a pleasant, low-cost way for a family to spend an afternoon. Sadly, I do not think it will be possible for the city to have this sort of facility as long as the GWC is in the picture. I realize that if the GWC moves out of Nay Aug, that means the animals will be out of the public eye and that probably is not good. On the other hand, without the support she receives from the city, I doubt that Ms. Miller would have gone out and acquired two tigers. At the least, the city's support made that easier for her to do, and I am concerned that she may acquire still more animals. Most importantly, there is the problem of public safety.

I think that if the GWC is going to stay in Nay Aug Park, the city should get a LOT more involved in the GWC's management. Ideally, I think they should hire someone (or perhaps find a willing volunteer) who has the proper expertise to oversee the GWC, and then insist that Ms. Miller listen to that expert's advice if she wants the city's financial support to continue. If the city is not prepared to find some way to quickly improve the situation at the GWC, then I think the city should notify the GWC that the city's support will not continue past 2009. This may seem harsh, but again, given the fact that the GWC owns the animals, I don't think the city has a lot of options. And I do think there is a real chance that someone is going to be hurt or even killed if business as usual continues at the GWC.

[scrantonluna]

I would have to think that the city could operate the zoo just as well on the 60k a year they already spend. Granted, they would need to find their own animals, but they would undoubtedly also have fewer ones to feed and care for, reducing costs.

You would need a director and probably two assistants, so there is a cost involved there. Let's say with pay and benefits, maybe 90-100k for all three? So figure 160k a year total, then subtract any in-kind donations, you're probably looking at 90-110k to operate.

Think it's worth it?

Without major modifications to the structure, they could easily accomodate 5 good sized pens; two per side down the main hallway, plus the tiger area. The four smaller pens could hold native wildlife (ground hogs, porcupines, maybe a couple falcons, etc.) while the large pen could probably accomodate a pair of black bears. I wonder if some sort of co-op could be forged with the state? Many of the animals could be captured locally at very minimal cost.

[weluvpa]

If it was worth it and the city could do it then the ORIGINAL ZOO would still be open. Christ they cannot even take care of their budget or the swing set at Nay Aug so why would you think that they could take care of animals.