For bird volunteers, a bond is broken
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Bryan McKenzie
Published: July 25, 2008
LOUISA —
Andrew Neilson sits by a cage, caressing the beak of the brightly feathered macaw he calls Cookie.
Cookie, her maw wide open, returns the caress, running her tongue along Mr. Neilson’s fingertip while purring like a tabby.
“It kills me,” he says, slow, soft and sad. “When we brought her home she was frightened and nervous and scared and she didn’t trust humans, but she adapted so well. She’s such a loving, sweet bird and she trusts me.”
Like a boy with his dog, Mr. Neilson and Cookie have a bond that even a novice can notice. That bond was officially broken Friday when Cookie, and 30 other macaws temporarily housed at the Central Virginia Parrot Sanctuary, were inspected, documented and returned to their original owners.
Charges of neglect
The macaws came to the sanctuary in May after Orange County Animal Control officers seized the birds and charged Danny Ray Crosswhite, 49, and Sally A. Crosswhite, 58, each with 27 counts of cruelty and four counts of neglect. Under an agreement reached in Orange County General District Court, all charges will be dropped and the birds will be returned to the Crosswhites under certain conditions.
Those conditions include the Crosswhites paying nearly $20,000 to the court to defray veterinary costs incurred in treating the birds. If the payments are made by Jan. 9, the birds will be returned. In the meantime, they will be housed in the Florida facility.
Sally Crosswhite declined to comment Friday, except to say they love their birds and will be glad to have them back.
When the birds came to the Louisa-based shelter, some were fostered out to volunteers while other birds, those unlikely to be tamed enough to be pets, were kept at the sanctuary.
“We didn’t have a cage for Cookie. She had a room that we remodeled specifically for her,” Mr. Neilson says. “I put in several different perches of different kinds of wood and she had the freedom to move around. Every morning I would get up, get ready for work, go in and clean up around her, give her fresh water and fresh fruit and nuts and food. We really grew close. She’s such a great bird.”
Cookie caws soft and low. Her tongue reaches again for Mr. Neilson’s fingertip, caressing the nail. She purrs.
‘Violating her trust’
Many of the volunteers and shelter staff, even the animal control officers, said they believed that the seizure would be permanent, much like those made in cases involving dogs and cats. Birds, however, are considered property under Virginia law. That led to the court agreement and the birds’ return, court officials have said.
It also led to the disappointment of people who care a great deal for the birds.
“I tried to purchase Cookie, but it didn’t work. We couldn’t agree on a price that I could afford,” Mr. Neilson said. “I feel like I’m violating her trust.”
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Janet H ) on July 27, 2008 at 12:26 am
Right on Batman!!! The defendants stipulate (admit) that there is sufficient evidence to all 31 criminal charges against them.
Enough said!!!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Batman ) on July 26, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Read line 1 of the court agreement. You may need an intelligent person to translate it for you however. It essentially means that the defendants admit that there was enough evidence against them to convict them of the charges they were arrested on. If these are the kind of people you want to come to the defense of, go ahead - but we know what side of the fence you sit on!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Marc Johnson ) on July 26, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The US constitution used to defend slavery, the denial of blacks and women the right to vote, etc. Things change Bird and Horse lady. As we get smarter we change our “rules” to reflect our enlightenment.
Evolve!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( birdandhorselady ) on July 26, 2008 at 10:15 am
So, if an animal is seized under color of law (i.e., stolen), and the court finds that the animal should be returned to its *owner*, the person who was given the animal by the thieves should get publicity to whine about how they weren’t allowed to keep the animal—-because usually seizures result in animals being permanently stolen from their owners. Hmmmm. Has anyone read the U.S. Constitution or is this “animal rights fanatics” la-la land we live in?
Report Inappropriate Comment