W.o.l.f. Sanctuary
Started by Allison, Mar 15 2009 08:35 PM
9 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 15 March 2009 - 08:35 PM
Recently, Kim and I had a conversation with some people who help to give Wolves and Wolf dogs sanctuary. It is not always easy, and one of our contacts could use our help. Read the story below, follow the link, and look at the rescued wolves. Check out JJ. It's enough to break your heart. What's wrong with people?
'SAVE THE SANCTUARY'
Larimer County Threatens To Close The WOLF Sanctuary
In 2007 Wolf began building new enclosures on property owned by Wolf. but not in the original 5 acres approved by our County. Wolf owns a total of 182 acres. There are four enclosures, each 1/2 acre in size. It took over a year and a half to complete them. They were built to accommodate the animals we had at a temporary site in Gilpin County, Colorado. It was plain to see that these animals would not be placeable at other facilities and also obvious that where they were was going to be very problematic in the long term. The Land Use Code for the County is very clear that fencing for Agricultural uses, which is how the Sanctuary is classified, do not require any permits to construct.
Wolf had applied for an Amended Special Review to expand the Sanctuary. After 7 plus years without a single complaint against the Sanctuary and no violations of the conditions placed on the Sanctuary by the County, we were pretty confident our request would be approved -- after all what speaks better than historical facts. We further believed that even at the very outside, if the county did not allow us to have more animals, the new enclosures would allow us to spread out some of the animals that were in somewhat smaller areas. You guessed it, the County denied all of the items we had requested, including being able to use more than 5 acres of our own land.
Now we had 4 outstanding enclosures that we could not use. The County had very little justification for their denial, so Wolf filed an appeal to challenge their decision. Not content to allow the law suit to reach its conclusion, Larimer County has now demanded that we tear down the new enclosures or face having the entire Sanctuary shut down. And even though it took us a year and half to build them, they want them gone by March 20th. Although we have requested an explanation of the authority under which they are demanding this action, we have yet to receive any sort of rule, law or ordinace that backs up their demands.
It certainly seems to us that there is something seriously out of wack here and for the lives of the wolves in our guardianship, we cannot allow it to continue. PLEASE HELP!
How you can help.
'SAVE THE SANCTUARY'
Larimer County Threatens To Close The WOLF Sanctuary
In 2007 Wolf began building new enclosures on property owned by Wolf. but not in the original 5 acres approved by our County. Wolf owns a total of 182 acres. There are four enclosures, each 1/2 acre in size. It took over a year and a half to complete them. They were built to accommodate the animals we had at a temporary site in Gilpin County, Colorado. It was plain to see that these animals would not be placeable at other facilities and also obvious that where they were was going to be very problematic in the long term. The Land Use Code for the County is very clear that fencing for Agricultural uses, which is how the Sanctuary is classified, do not require any permits to construct.
Wolf had applied for an Amended Special Review to expand the Sanctuary. After 7 plus years without a single complaint against the Sanctuary and no violations of the conditions placed on the Sanctuary by the County, we were pretty confident our request would be approved -- after all what speaks better than historical facts. We further believed that even at the very outside, if the county did not allow us to have more animals, the new enclosures would allow us to spread out some of the animals that were in somewhat smaller areas. You guessed it, the County denied all of the items we had requested, including being able to use more than 5 acres of our own land.
Now we had 4 outstanding enclosures that we could not use. The County had very little justification for their denial, so Wolf filed an appeal to challenge their decision. Not content to allow the law suit to reach its conclusion, Larimer County has now demanded that we tear down the new enclosures or face having the entire Sanctuary shut down. And even though it took us a year and half to build them, they want them gone by March 20th. Although we have requested an explanation of the authority under which they are demanding this action, we have yet to receive any sort of rule, law or ordinace that backs up their demands.
It certainly seems to us that there is something seriously out of wack here and for the lives of the wolves in our guardianship, we cannot allow it to continue. PLEASE HELP!
How you can help.
One could argue that evolution suggests we’re not idiots, but I would say, “Well, no. Evolution just makes sure we’re not blithering idiots."
--David Dunning
--David Dunning
#2
Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:46 PM
Have now shared this on Facebook and MySpace. Will post on my blogs first thing tomorrow when I get done with training. Thank you Allison for bringing this to our attention - I hate when politics get in the way of good causes!
"Treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children" - Unknown
#3
Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:58 PM
Debi, on Mar 17 2009, 01:46 AM, said:
Have now shared this on Facebook and MySpace. Will post on my blogs first thing tomorrow when I get done with training. Thank you Allison for bringing this to our attention - I hate when politics get in the way of good causes!
"Treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children" - Unknown
#4
Posted 23 March 2009 - 08:08 PM
Quote
Thank you again for your outstanding response to our request for help. It is my understanding that we were fortunate enough to have supporter emails numbering in the thousands sent to the Commissioners. Your outstanding support truly made a difference.
Many of you have received responses back from the Larimer County Commissioners and we understand there has been a great deal of confusion and what seem to be contradictions of what we have communicated. We may have erred in not detailing the long and convoluted history between WOLF and the County in regard to the necessity of permits, and for that we apologize. It was not our intention, however, to mislead. It was simply to draw the bottom line – potential closure – as we understood it and as we had been threatened, to our supporters and the public as quickly and succinctly as possible. The reality of that threat, as we perceived it and delineated by the County Attorney (see letter – click), has now been downplayed by the County. We don’t want to quibble over that but to express our gratitude that the threat has been defused thanks to your quick actions. We do feel we owe it to you, however, to give you a bit more of the history from our perspective.
Before building the original structures, we – with benefit of legal counsel – read the Larimer County Land Use Code. Knowing that we are classified as an agricultural use, we examined provisions related to agricultural areas and to fencing in general. All that we found in the code was a requirement that residential fences over six feet in height had to be permitted. In May of 2000, when the County informed us we needed building permits, we asked the County where in the Codes the requirement for agricultural fences was to be found, so that we might follow the requirements it contained. We received no response and, since the County did not reply to several attempts, we assumed we were correct and did not apply.
Over five years later, when we were considering filing the amended special review, we had another attorney review the Codes in regard to fences also. She also was unable to find a requirement for permitting fences on agricultural lands, wrote the County to inquire about the basis for their allegations, and received no reply. Thus we, under the impression that because the County had again not responded there was no basis in the Code for requiring a building permit for fences on agricultural lands, proceeded to build the new enclosures in 2007 and 2008.
At that time we had applied for the Amended Special Review, to expand the Sanctuary, and were optimistic as to its being granted. The attorney representing us in that application also found no basis in the Codes for permitting of fences on agricultural lands, but suggested that we apply for permits as a gesture of good will toward the County, which we did in January of 2008. No action was taken by the County on those permits until the end of February 2009, when the County told us that the permit for the original enclosures was granted, the permit for the new enclosures was denied, and that the new enclosures had to be removed by March 20 or face proceedings to revoke WOLF’s special review permit. If revoked, the Sanctuary would be forced to close. We were not told that we only needed to pay for the permit for the original enclosures and reapply for a permit on the new enclosures. Because of the physical impossibility and financial impracticability of removing the new enclosures by that date, revocation seemed inevitable.
In retrospect, it looks as if there was a lack of communication on both sides and what communication there was often was miscommunication. Although our legal counsel still questions the necessity of the permits, since the County is now willing to grant them provided we do not house any animals in the new enclosures, we have paid for and received the permits. We hope that this resolution will be the beginning of a new and improved relationship with the County.
We believe that your ardent support shifted the County away from the path on which we perceived it to be going – denying the permits for the new enclosures and then forcing a closure of the Sanctuary – to this new path of cooperation. We thank you so very much for your support. We again apologize for any confusion or distress this may have caused you. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel to contact me.
Sincerely,
Frank Wendland
Cofounder
W.O.L.F. Sanctuary
fwendland@wolfsanctuary.net
www.wolfsanctuary.net
www.myspace.com/wolf_sanctuary
Many of you have received responses back from the Larimer County Commissioners and we understand there has been a great deal of confusion and what seem to be contradictions of what we have communicated. We may have erred in not detailing the long and convoluted history between WOLF and the County in regard to the necessity of permits, and for that we apologize. It was not our intention, however, to mislead. It was simply to draw the bottom line – potential closure – as we understood it and as we had been threatened, to our supporters and the public as quickly and succinctly as possible. The reality of that threat, as we perceived it and delineated by the County Attorney (see letter – click), has now been downplayed by the County. We don’t want to quibble over that but to express our gratitude that the threat has been defused thanks to your quick actions. We do feel we owe it to you, however, to give you a bit more of the history from our perspective.
Before building the original structures, we – with benefit of legal counsel – read the Larimer County Land Use Code. Knowing that we are classified as an agricultural use, we examined provisions related to agricultural areas and to fencing in general. All that we found in the code was a requirement that residential fences over six feet in height had to be permitted. In May of 2000, when the County informed us we needed building permits, we asked the County where in the Codes the requirement for agricultural fences was to be found, so that we might follow the requirements it contained. We received no response and, since the County did not reply to several attempts, we assumed we were correct and did not apply.
Over five years later, when we were considering filing the amended special review, we had another attorney review the Codes in regard to fences also. She also was unable to find a requirement for permitting fences on agricultural lands, wrote the County to inquire about the basis for their allegations, and received no reply. Thus we, under the impression that because the County had again not responded there was no basis in the Code for requiring a building permit for fences on agricultural lands, proceeded to build the new enclosures in 2007 and 2008.
At that time we had applied for the Amended Special Review, to expand the Sanctuary, and were optimistic as to its being granted. The attorney representing us in that application also found no basis in the Codes for permitting of fences on agricultural lands, but suggested that we apply for permits as a gesture of good will toward the County, which we did in January of 2008. No action was taken by the County on those permits until the end of February 2009, when the County told us that the permit for the original enclosures was granted, the permit for the new enclosures was denied, and that the new enclosures had to be removed by March 20 or face proceedings to revoke WOLF’s special review permit. If revoked, the Sanctuary would be forced to close. We were not told that we only needed to pay for the permit for the original enclosures and reapply for a permit on the new enclosures. Because of the physical impossibility and financial impracticability of removing the new enclosures by that date, revocation seemed inevitable.
In retrospect, it looks as if there was a lack of communication on both sides and what communication there was often was miscommunication. Although our legal counsel still questions the necessity of the permits, since the County is now willing to grant them provided we do not house any animals in the new enclosures, we have paid for and received the permits. We hope that this resolution will be the beginning of a new and improved relationship with the County.
We believe that your ardent support shifted the County away from the path on which we perceived it to be going – denying the permits for the new enclosures and then forcing a closure of the Sanctuary – to this new path of cooperation. We thank you so very much for your support. We again apologize for any confusion or distress this may have caused you. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel to contact me.
Sincerely,
Frank Wendland
Cofounder
W.O.L.F. Sanctuary
fwendland@wolfsanctuary.net
www.wolfsanctuary.net
www.myspace.com/wolf_sanctuary
One could argue that evolution suggests we’re not idiots, but I would say, “Well, no. Evolution just makes sure we’re not blithering idiots."
--David Dunning
--David Dunning
#5
Posted 23 March 2009 - 08:21 PM
Freakin' Awesome! I am so glad that they have been able to get their permits!
"Treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children" - Unknown
#6
Posted 23 March 2009 - 08:22 PM
Great news!! Thanks for the follow up!
Big Air Bella powered by CANIDAE!!!!! High Flyin' Fun SoCal Style!!!!
#7
Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:09 PM
Todd this is wonderful news I to help our firend the wolf when I can
keep up the good work
keep up the good work
Linda Bell
#8
Posted 30 March 2009 - 07:30 PM
Hello Linda. Nice to meet you, and welcome.
One could argue that evolution suggests we’re not idiots, but I would say, “Well, no. Evolution just makes sure we’re not blithering idiots."
--David Dunning
--David Dunning
#9
Posted 02 April 2009 - 02:10 AM
Allison, on Mar 31 2009, 03:30 AM, said:
Hello Linda. Nice to meet you, and welcome.
Hello Linda also,
Just to say I have rejoined the Wolf Sanctuary here in UK, it raises awareness of the difficulty with preservation and education about wolves and gives money to places in Europe and Ethiopia to help care for the wolves there also.
The Spring issue of their magazine Wolf Print highlights the Russian Wolf very interesting articles
#10
Posted 02 April 2009 - 05:49 AM
One could argue that evolution suggests we’re not idiots, but I would say, “Well, no. Evolution just makes sure we’re not blithering idiots."
--David Dunning
--David Dunning
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users












