Vikky's UKPR donation policy

Following on from: Something to think about

Update below

In Vikky's defence of people claiming that she is selling rescue birds, including trying to sell a Cites listed bird which is highly illegal within the UK, she has stated the following:

Vikky's quote: B. No ukpr bird is sold, people pay a minimum donation if they want to to cover costs,its not a case of if you dont pay you dont get.

Image: Rules regarding UKPR's donation policy

It is clearly stated that it is not a case of if you dont pay you dont get!

This claim is completely contradictory to what a former UKPR ACO has stated about the 'donation' side to rehoming rescue birds.

A Triton Cockatoo named Pebbles was offered to Caron on an emergency care basis with a view to long term fostering, but because she would not pay the £150 'donation' fee for him, Pebbles was prevented from reaching his destination and had to stay with his present carer.

If my memory serves me correctly, it is my belief that Pebbles was offered to another person as well who also would not pay the 'donation' fee for him (correct me if I am wrong).

So Pebbles the expensive Triton Cockatoo then ended up with one of the UKPR founders who did not have to pay the 'donation' fee.

This same ACO shared another similar story where another rescue bird was prevented from going to its new home until the £50 'donation' fee was paid.

Image: Pebble's and Lola's fee

ACO's quote: Surely if a donation is a fixed fee, then it is not a donation (gift)? It is then a price for a sale instead? It certainly covers more than an admin fee. Plus the £50 Vikky made on Lola didn’t go to any of Lola’s up keep, that came straight out of my pocket. So the £50 Vikky received was pure profit which she received cash in hand from the fosterer.

Does this sound like, as Vikky states concerning UKPR's 'donation' policy, that "it's not a case of if you dont pay you dont get"?

When in reality, is it not really a case of "if you dont pay you dont get"?

How many other past and present ACOs are there who know of similar stories where rescue birds have been prevented from going to their new homes because the 'donation' fees have not been paid?

These are not isolated incidents, they are just a couple of incidents that someone has been willing to come forward and share.

Further reading: UKPR practices


Update

Vikky has tried to rebuff the above situation with Pebbles the Triton Cockatoo by presenting an email where Caron removes herself from being a potential home - Image

How long was Caron left waiting with no word from Vikky after being initially asked to home him?

From the ACO who was dealing with this re-home's own words "In Vikky's eyes Caron was blacklisted from ever having Pebbles" - Image

Are people supposed to wait indefinitely with no communication about what is happening?

You can see why Caron never heard anything - She was blacklisted for being unwilling to pay a 'donation', and how could Vikky then publicly state that Caron was removed from having Pebbles?

She could'nt so left her hanging on!

At least Caron had the courtesy to draw a line under it and withdraw herself from the picture of offering Pebbles a home.

Whilst Caron was left in the dark hanging around not knowing what was happening about homing Pebbles, unbeknown to her he was offered for sale to another person 'Midge' who was again, willing to take him in, but unwilling to pay for the privilege - Image

Because neither would pay for the privilage of fostering Pebbles, and there was no other suitable candidates to try and sell him too, he eventually went to one of the founders of UKPR... Alan.... The Cockatoo breeder... No 'donation' was paid.

Image: Pebbles


Further reading: The business plan

Further reading: UKPR business practices