News, Spring 2002, page 2

'Spring time in the Rockies' is a spectacular time of year. The weather can change from 65° and sunny to 30° and snowing all within the course of an hour. Unfortunately, there have been far more sunny warm days than snowy ones. Sounds kind of strange to hear someone say that, however the precipitation levels are significantly below normal and concerns focus on the wildfire danger.

As many of you remember the late spring wildfires of 2000 forced us to evacuate the facility: totally once and partially a second time. The first evacuation resulted in the death of one of the animals from stress and took several years off of the life span of the founders. Consequently, we are readying our procedures and equipment for any situation.

The more positive side of Spring: the ducks are back on the pond, everything is turning green, the water or should I say lack of ice in the animals water is easier to deal with, traversing our road is not a lesson in panic control, watching the animals hunt & kill Easter eggs is entertaining, and we are anxiously awaiting the return of the hummingbirds and wildflowers.

As we began planning the building of several new enclosures, in order to move several groups out of smaller enclosures, it became apparent that all of the money in the building fund was gone. Not to anyone's surprise it had all gone to the rash of medical expenses incurred over the past two years. When we calculated what those totaled we were somewhat shocked: it was over $22,000. We quickly sent out several grant proposals trying to replenish building funds. Hopefully we will hear something positive within the next several weeks.

We don't hold our breath for these proposals, however. The latest statistics from The Foundation Center, although improving, is not very optimistic for animal welfare grant giving. In 1995 "Animals & Wildlife" received only 0.7% of all U.S. foundation grant money, in 1998 it was 0.9% and in 2000 it was 1.2%. Not horribly encouraging. We will let you know how our quest comes out.

It appears that our lawyer (Russ Sanford-Allen, Varhenwald & Johnson) was able to secure a cease-fire with the county on the number of animals at our renter's cabin. Evidently the commissioners agreed that the zoning regulation was going to be changed to match the new animal ordinance and therefore was not worth pursuing.

Many of you who have made donations this year have noticed and commented on our new thank you/tax receipt cards. We began sending the new cards at the beginning of the year with a full-color photo on the front. Each month will feature a different animal at the sanctuary. The two photos below were the photos used for January and February.

We continue to be in awe with the number of large groups of animals that need rescuing. At last writing we mentioned pending situations in Oregon, Alaska and Colorado that totaled approximately 130 animals. We continue to follow the status of Alaska and Colorado but have left the Oregon situation to another sanctuary to pursue.

Since then we have become very involved in raising funds to move the animals from Maine (see page 1) and very peripherally involved with a situation near Flagstaff AZ. We are very hopeful with the Maine rescue but have been totally frustrated with the AZ situation.

The best information we can get about Flagstaff is that an individual who bred wolves and wolf-dogs was being evicted from his land had approximately 40 animals. Evidently local animal control officers visited his facility and killed 26 of the animals that were perceived to be wolf-dogs. They refrained from killing the remaining 14 animals believing them to be pure wolves. The owner threatened to release the animals rather than let authorities kill anymore. This approach would have been disastrous for a number of reasons. First: the animals would have a very small chance of surviving and die horrible deaths. Second: they are located close to the Mexican Gray Wolf reintroduction area, which could have serious implications for the gene pool of the Mexican Grays. We received phone calls from two separate individuals about this situation and as abruptly as they called they disappeared and attempts to contact them have failed. Our last information was that the owner was working with a rescue in Texas.

As we continue to follow these situations we will try to keep you informed. The easiest approach to accomplish that would be through email. So, if you are interested in receiving these updates, please send us your email address.

We appreciate all of the notes we receive from our supporters, not just your money. Don't get me wrong; money is needed to do what we do. However, your moral support is also needed so that we don't lose the motivation and faith that there really are humans that care.

Bea Taylor's second article was published in the February issue. It deals primarily with the conflict the sanctuary has been involved in. We asked and received permission to reprint it for you.

In November I found myself at the gates of W.O.L.F. (Wolves Offered Life and Friendship) bonding with a group of distinctly unique and personable wolf-hybrids and their human family members. Winding through Rist Canyon, Wolf property extends over 182 acres of breathtaking Colorado landscape, replete with crags and firs, streams and the silvery dust of winter snow. (See the December issue of the Coffee Cup Companion).

It seemed to be an idyllic place for an animal sanctuary. Remote enough from the everyday traffic of suburbia, distant to most mountain neighbors, and zoned "Open" for land use, a sanctuary on these many acres would seem on the surface to be innocuous, and certainly of no trouble to Larimer County.

According to Andre Duvall of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wolf is up to par. "I think they're fulfilling a function that is there to be filled. They are in compliance with Division of Wildlife regulations. In fact, I inspected the facility when they were building it, and they have built it to our standards and we have had no troubles with animals getting loose, or with anything with wildlife with them whatsoever."

So why has Wolf made headlines across most of the major newspapers in the Northern Colorado area? In a nutshell, zoning issues regarding land use and the acceptable number of animals, plus vague conflicts with neighbors who complain of noise, and vandalism. There's also contested use of a private road running through someone else's property with easements. All these issues have sullied a pristine endeavor to offer a safe haven for these animals.

Craig Brestrup, Ph.D., from the Association of Sanctuaries was eager to share his praise. "It's a very good facility, I visited it and inspected it and spent several hours there visiting with Pat and Frank. They are both very, very competent people who are doing a damn good job there, and it's a shame that this kind of thing has to get in the way of their continuing to do it.

"If the issue were things like safety or quality of care--those just aren't issues--that's part of what I inspected for when I was there. Sometimes people will say 'oh you've got these wild animals in our back yard and they're going to get free and kill our children or something.' I don't believe they have ever had an escape, and even if they did, wolves, in the rare times that they do escape, they don't go off and ravage. They're usually such intimidated animals because they've had such terrible experiences, that they're not a danger at all unless they are really threatened. Wolves in the wild don't seek out people, they avoid people like mad.

"My understanding of the problem is that it's one of those political situations. Some of the neighbors didn't like having wolves in the vicinity, for what reason, I don't know, unless it is a kind of widespread prejudice against wolves based on everything from stories we're told as children to other kinds of things. I'm not sure what all turned the neighbors against them, but they have plenty of space up there and they do a splendid job of taking care of the wolves, and they've got enough space to take care of more, and would except for this issue with their county putting a restriction on how many they can keep.

"Counties everywhere in the country are the most political bodies in the world. You never know what it all might be," Brestrup said.

Keith Roehr, of the Colorado State Veterinarian's Office says, "They've done well within our program--they've been licensed with us for a number of years and I feel their animal care and their facility requirements certainly meet or exceed our minimum requirements, so I think they've done well in that respect. I understand most of their problems are not with any entities that they are licensed with but rather have to do with zoning issues and local county problems that they have run into.

"My only comment is that it seemed that though the decision was perhaps somewhat political, in that I think they determined there probably wasn't a great deal of impact on the neighbors in letting them continue, but it seemed like there were some limitations that might have been somewhat arbitrary in that it did limit their ability to operate. But I don't know that the impact of the facility changed all that much when they limited the numbers down to that number, so it just seemed like an arbitrary decision.

"They can probably grow without a lot of impact to their neighbors somewhat. I think certainly there's a limit, but the potential impact to the neighbors is probably going to exist whether there's 24 wolf-dogs there or if there's 35, or whatever I don't see that there would be a lot of difference," said Roehr.

The Larimer County Commissioner's office has discretion over the appropriate use of lands within the boundaries of zoning regulations. Anyone in Larimer County who owns more than 3 animals, basically in all zoned areas, would be subject to a special review in order to determine the boundaries of appropriate animal care and numbers of animals. When more than 3 animals are boarded or sheltered, it's classified as a kennel. The Commissioners have a criteria for approving the proposed land use via a special review that must meet various discretionary conditions, according to the land use code section 4.5.3 on special reviews, the following is necessary for certain types of land use in zoned areas:

D) The proposed use is compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area and will be in harmony with the neighborhood.

F) The proposed use will not exceed air, water, odor or noise standards established by county, state, or federal regulations.

Carol Evans of the Larimer County Planning and Zoning Department explains, "The Larimer County Humane Society went through the special review process when it was originally constructed, and then when they expanded, they amended the special review, or did a second one, to allow that. That agency went through that same process that the Wolf facility did."

She elaborated on the ongoing issues, "Many of the neighboring property owners were upset, they were concerned, some of them stated that 'we appreciate the idea behind what they are doing, but we have these concerns and issues and problems with it,' [they have] concerns about noise, traffic, concerns of animals potentially getting out and having some fear of those animals getting out. [They're] being told that they are dangerous animals on one hand, but then being told don't worry about it if they get out.

"As I recall from Pat's testimony in the hearings, before they had constructed the enclosures the way they are now, they did have some animals getting out, and so I think that is part of where some of that fear came from. Gosh it happened before and you said they couldn't get out but here they are, you know, chasing me across my property. So I think from that standpoint the neighbors maybe had that concern.

"There were a number of people who testified about the noise and that when the animals get going it was loud-sound carries in such strange ways-that's a difficult one to try and evaluate.

"Part of basing the decision on the special review was mitigating the impacts that the use would have and the commissioners heard many hours of testimony from lots of people. One of those things was saying hey, you know, the number of animals affects the impacts-more animals, more impacts.

"When the organization first approached the county about submitting a special review and asked for a waiver of their fees, their proposal was that they wanted to have up to twenty. The problem that we ran into in this particular case was that they continued to increase the animals and increase them and increase them and increase them. And in the files some of the letters from neighbors said 'you know I was approached by them-I wouldn't object to up to twenty, that's okay, that's what they told me, and, I could handle that,' then they call us and say 'this is getting out of hand-what's going on here, they keep bringing more and more in.' So those kinds of things-there's a lack of trust."

But Pat Wendland, cofounder of Wolf, adamantly disagrees that there has ever been any breach of trust. "What happened was one of our neighbors wrote a letter to the county saying that he had no objection to us doing what we were doing down here and wouldn't have any problem if it was around twenty animals. Not only did we never initiate it, but we never agreed in public or private-anywhere-to a number of animals until the planning commission, which is made up of 7 people, asked us to come up with what we thought would be a reasonable number to put on 182 acres. At that time, which was the only time, we said that we felt we could handle 55 animals here. Now the County Planning Commission came back with their recommendation to the County Commissioners and said, 'we believe that 55 animals on that size of a property would not be out of line.' Up until that point no number had ever been mentioned or agreed to by us. Unfortunately, that rumor still persists and the county continues to spread that rumor."

"The County Commissioners [heard] these conditions in another hearing and they said 'we have to go off and discuss this,' and they came back, and I believe it was Commissioner Olsen [who] said that she recommended we not be allowed to have more than 25. Of course we already had 42. Our attorneys tried very hard twice to make a compromise with the commissioners that we be allowed to get down to the number 30 by attrition-they turned us down both times."

However, there was "a last minute deadline decision on their part when we had over 100 people show up at that meeting wearing buttons with pictures of the animals that said 'don't pick me,' and I believe public pressure just got too much for them. I don't think they could have made us kill those animals at that point, and that is when they agreed to allow us to get down to 30 by attrition.

"They still insist, and there is this pervading thing that we have lied. Jim Disney basically tried to rip us a new one in front of the public, saying that we've broken every promise we've ever made. When the truth of the matter is, we have broken no promises. And when Commissioner Disney was challenged to give us an example of a promise that we had made that we had broken he could not come up with one, and that was at a public meeting," Pat said.

Not only does Wolf claim they have not broken any promises, but that they are not causing any disturbance to their community.

Pat describes the early escape incident, which predated the current enclosures. "The animals in question were 4 months old, one intelligent enough to open a latch. The pups went to Mr. Smith's home and looked into his window. When he opened the door, they ran home."

"When the original complaints came, we had been here an entire year-we had 14 or 15 animals that whole year," says Pat. "There was never a complaint about noise-never-until we went public. We had a young lady that was interning at the Coloradoan, within two weeks after the article appeared in the newspaper, there were three complaints. One from a person who is a mile away, one from a person who is 3/4 of a mile away, and one from a person who is 2 1/2 miles away, complaining about noise.

"We had a sound engineer come out and do sound testing. We contacted the people that were adjacent to our property, asked for their permission to go to their property and do sound testing so that if there was a problem we could remove it. They all denied us permission, so we did our sound testing at property lines, we had 42 [animals at the time]." Everything was in compliance with county noise requirements.

The other biting issue surrounding Wolf is road access to the Wolf property. Formerly accessible to the public for educational purposes, the Larimer County Commissioners imposed further restrictions on Wolf.

According to Carol Evans, "The other neighbors and their attorneys said there is no road here-these people are trespassing, so there's actually a private civil issue going on."

"What the commissioners did [was to] limit how the road should be used. They made a finding [that] the access road to the subject property is a primitive mountain access road.

Additional traffic on the road will cause additional maintenance problems. Legal authority of petitioner-that would be Wolf-to use the access road for the purpose intended has been questioned. The board should not decide that issue, that's really an issue for the court to decide. In keeping with that, then they had conditions dealing with the access and the use of it. 'The use of the access road shall be limited to vehicles of occupants of the property and persons performing daily care for the animals, this is estimated to be no more than 7 round trips per day' a substantial departure from these numbers will be cause for a hearing to terminate this use. No school, tour or similar busses or vans should be permitted to travel to the property on the access road.'"

She added, "Part of the issue with the zoning and the land use was the neighbors saying, 'hey we've got all this traffic going on this road-it's not designed for this, we've got these tours coming in, we've got all these people all the time, this is a really primitive kind of a road.' The other property owners saying 'hey this road actually begins on my property, none of you have an easement to use it, you're all trespassing.'"

But once again Pat vehemently disagrees. "It is one particular neighbor who has a problem with usage of the road, but it's not just a problem with Wolf. They have also bothered the de Francisco's, the Smiths, Mr. Gates, and Mr. Johnson. They don't want anybody using the road for anything. Mrs. Smith has an in-home office, and they don't want her to have that. They don't want anybody basically using what they consider to be their road. Now from our point of view, when we bought this property it came with an easement. The easement is not restricted, it does not say you can't use this for anything else but a weekend cabin, which is what the people who are making the complaint would like everybody to believe. It just says we have the right to use the road to get to our property."

And Pat pointed out, "If one person complains, does that give them (the Commissioners or the Planning Department) the right to discriminate against Wolf? This is a civil matter, it is not a matter for the commissioners, and their own attorney has told them that. It is still being adjudicated by the title companies. The other people on this road also feel that the Schoondermark's are being unreasonable. With the draft of the easement that they have proposed to us, they have done things like saying, 'well you can only have access for one single family dwelling'-we own five parcels, the Defrancesco's own two, the Smith's own two, so that is totally unacceptable for not only me but other people. If we were to agree to what they are asking, my husband and I would only be allowed to come to our home on weekends. I would not be able to subdivide my property and sell it if I wanted to, and neither would other people.

"The Schoondermark's do not even live on the property. This is the lady who sees the traffic from Littleton. This is the woman that said 'they've turned our little dirt road into I-25' and she doesn't live here. The easement says we have the legal right for access to our property from Rist Canyon Road.

"This is America, and as far as I know there isn't anyone in this country that can tell me that I can't have visitors to my home.

"We did a traffic survey. Our average, year round, is 3.5 cars per day. If that isn't I-25, then I don't know what is! The national average for a single family residence is 5 per day."

And in the midst of the feud between Wolf, it's neighbors, and the County Commissioners, are 40 sentient and beautiful creatures. They are ambassadors to schools, tools for education, spiritual growth, and healing, and playful joyous beings who depend on the sanctuary at Wolf to live out their lives. By cutting through the bureaucracy, all that Pat and Frank Wendland hope to accomplish with Wolf is to use their private parcels of land to do good works for animals in need.

"Every year there are thousands and thousands [of wolf-hybrids] that are surrendered to shelters. Most shelters do not place these animals up for adoption because there's a certain liability involved if they place an animal with known or suspected tendencies to bite or attack people. Their insurance carriers many times won't allow them to take the risk. And so it's an automatic one-way trip, they just get euthanized, thousands of them every single year," says Vernon Weir, from The American Sanctuary Association.

"All of our sanctuaries are important to us because we are constantly searching for good placement facilities in which to put animals that have no place to go. Wolf currently has some zoning restrictions, and it limits their ability to do more right now. But they're of course doing a good job of taking care of the animals they have, and who knows maybe someday in the future they'll again be able to take in more animals."