I am so angry! (warning graphic pic attached)

[RavensGryf]

I've been looking at her Facebook to try to find the owners of the other eclectus babies and I can't really find them. She reposts customer photos with her own captions and no tags.

I think even if I could convince someone to test their birds, they might test negative because they're not actually shedding the virus?

A lot of good replies here, thank you.

Unfortunately that seems to be the nature of the viral diseases we hear about. I'm not sure if Polyoma reacts the same way.

There were experiments done some years ago at bird marts across the country (US) where they swiped culture swabs on tables selling birds, as well as at non bird vendors tables. They were able to come up with "positives" for viral tests, Polyoma as one of them. I didn't post the link as to not derail this thread, but just letting you know that there is a way to test the environment. Of course to swab her facility I'd imagine there would need to be a warrant and surprise visit.

 

[Solo]

Sorry to hear this lady is being such a B. After visiting her site and noticing mass produce of varying species, I can honestly say she is nothing but a mill trying to profit from the production of as many chicks as she can possibly sell. Sadly, as long as anyone still buys from her, she will continue to breed. Can only hope Karma will satisfy the injustice she has caused to so many.

 

[JerseyWendy]

I can't see anything on birdbreeders.. Maybe cuz I'm not a member?

No, you don't need to be a member. Here's the feedback left today.

(Name)

Emmaus, Pennsylvania I purchased two eclectus parrots from Ana Temple and Carol Bravo on January 25, 2015. On March 17, 2015, I had to euthanize my female eclectus suffering from polyomavirus. My vet believes the virus originated from the breeder. 5/5/2015 5:46:45 PM

Sorry to hear this lady is being such a B. After visiting her site and noticing mass produce of varying species, I can honestly say she is nothing but a mill trying to profit from the production of as many chicks as she can possibly sell. Sadly, as long as anyone still buys from her, she will continue to breed. Can only hope Karma will satisfy the injustice she has caused to so many.

Very VERY well said, Rachel, and 100% the truth!!!

 

[LaurenB]

Is this Ana's Parrots in the Poconos?!?! I have seriously considered purchasing from her (prior to my adoptions) because I am located in PA and she is therefore the closest! I've even contacted her regarding her current IRN babies. UGH!!! I am so sorry for your loss and for having to go through all of this!

 

[Scott]

So sad to read of Raja's passing. The pic and facts of illness are haunting. Only a sociopath would be so cruelly focused on breeding to the detriment of safe practices and ethical responses.

 

[lizard]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/28183...notif_t=group_comment&actorid=100004001122074

I really wasn't ready for them to be so ugly.

 

[Doublete]

Their reaction is very unprofessional. And good business means you go above and beyond to make it right.
I believe you spoke to them months ago when the female first got sick? What did your vet say as the reason that the male is not sick?
Did they type out an official report with their findings? Unfortunately without THAT you can't even say anything about Ana. Be careful because she can sue you for slander. I would make sure you have every proof. Lawyers will take on her case easily.

 

[lizard]

Their reaction is very unprofessional. And good business means you go above and beyond to make it right.
I believe you spoke to them months ago when the female first got sick? What did your vet say as the reason that the male is not sick?
Did they type out an official report with their findings? Unfortunately without THAT you can't even say anything about Ana. Be careful because she can sue you for slander. I would make sure you have every proof. Lawyers will take on her case easily.

Yes, I have official necropsy results and statements from my vet and the vets she consulted with.

 

[Doublete]

What was your vets reasoning for the female having it and the male testing negative? I don't know how it works so don't know myself.

 

[labell]

Actually for her to win a slander or libel suit she would need to prove that the comments the op made in a written public forum are untrue. With the amount of brokered babies that come through her place as well as her own breeders she would have a difficult if not impossible time and VERY expensive to boot. All birds in her care both prior to and while Raja was there would need to be tested including the ones she has sold.

People like to throw of there that they will sue you for slander or libel but there is a burden of proof that must be proven and if the comments are true then it falls under free speech. The breeder is just trying to scare her.

 

[Doublete]

No I completely get that. I didn't say she would win.
But people will take the chance and sue for slander wi less than one leg to stand on. Happens in the horse industry all the time.

 

[lizard]

If I'm being dumb by pursuing this, please tell me.

I'm shocked at the accusations Ana is posting. And Carol is just down right dirty for insinuating that I had anything to do with Raja's death when she herself holds a copy of the necropsy.

 

[Doublete]

I think you have to pursue it.


But what is the vets statement in regards to why your male doesn't have it? I don't know myself about the disease so would have to rely on the vets.

But, did your contract state you had to have the birds checked within 72 hours? With my horses I always require a vet check at the time of transfer not so much for disease as injuries, etc. that's what protects me as a seller.
However, the grey area here is if the disease can lay dormant... What ana says about eclectus having zero tolerance, is that supported by your vet? Or does your vet think it could have laid dormant even on your male? In which case what is the actual incubation period and do you need to test him again?

 

[JerseyWendy]

I'm not gonna lie, but when I clicked on the FB link earlier, my eyeballs nearly popped out of my head. SMH!

I honestly would not have put this up on FB unless I had spoken with an attorney first. They sound like a bunch of scrupulous, calculating hoard of folks, none of whom I'd ever do business with.

 

[Anansi]

Actually for her to win a slander or libel suit she would need to prove that the comments the op made in a written public forum are untrue. With the amount of brokered babies that come through her place as well as her own breeders she would have a difficult if not impossible time and VERY expensive to boot. All birds in her care both prior to and while Raja was there would need to be tested including the ones she has sold.

People like to throw of there that they will sue you for slander or libel but there is a burden of proof that must be proven and if the comments are true then it falls under free speech. The breeder is just trying to scare her.

EXactly! Well said, Laura. That's why I warned earlier to just be careful not to put anything out there that might be proven as slanderous. You may be limited in your available legal recourse, but so is she.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/28183...notif_t=group_comment&actorid=100004001122074

I really wasn't ready for them to be so ugly.

Their best bet is to damage your credibility by making you seem money hungry rather than grief-stricken. So they'll probably continue to get as ugly as they deem necessary.

One thing, Liz. In reading your back and forth with them, I saw that you mentioned false negatives. Now, if I'm recalling correctly, (and I'll go and check to be sure) false negatives are far less prevalent with Polyoma than you would find with say PBFD or PDD. With the latter two, you can only detect them at all when the diseases are actively shedding. With Polyoma, however, I think you find the false negatives only in the carriers. Otherwise you'd find a positive result either through the presence of Polyoma DNA in the blood, or signs of the actively shedding virus in the droppings.

Again, I'll recheck to be sure.

On the other hand, I believe she misspoke when she claimed that an adult bird exposed to Polyoma would necessarily develop symptoms and die. As I recall, older birds (like 6 months to a year and older) exposed to the disease rarely catch it, unless their immunity was already compromised. As with the above, I'll recheck to be sure I'm remembering all of this correctly.

I'm so sorry you have to go through this right now, when you're still working through your grief.

 

[ChocoboFun]

I've noticed several comments to the effect of "I can't believe she is so mean and refuses to commiserate/show sympathy".

While I understand the feelings in saying that, I am not surprised in the least. Doing any of that, especially in writing, is the same as admitting guilt when it comes to a court case. She is protecting herself and her establishment by acting callous.

It is obvious to me that her/her establisment has plenty of experience with lawsuits. If you decide to take this to court, be prepared for that.

 

[lizard]

You guys are sanity savers, seriously, thank you. I'm going to step back from fb and let the proper authorities deal with this. If they side with her, so be it, but at least I know I didn't let them bully me into conceding. I'm not a confrontational person so this is giving me major anxiety!
Anansi, thank you for clarifying how the virus works for me. I'm going to have to read more because right now it sounds a little like Latin to me. I thought it could lie (lay?) dormant in a bird, possibly like Jack who tested negative although he was most likely exposed to the virus just like Raja. I probably am misinterpreting badly, I apologize.

 

[AnaTemple]

Since you’ve been posting all over about this I feel that people should get both sides.


Eclectus parrots have near zero toleration for Polyoma. The incubation period is around 2 weeks from exposure and symptoms usually occur 3-10 days after this incubation period. It is highly contagious and is usually spread from parent to baby, by dander, and by feces. People are also transmitters of this disease from dander relocation. It is rare that you will find an asymptomatic bird with Polyoma and even more rare that a Polyoma infected bird would make it to its fledgling stage. An adult exposed to Polyoma would have the same two week incubation period followed by its onset and acute death from the date of infection which would be about a month.

Polymoa if I remember correctly can survive for 6-months without a host. This means if you have a bird that is infected, unless you use a 1/10 solution of bleach on everything, a new bird can be infected with an old virus. You had this bird two months before it died. Anyone with a calculator can see the problems with the accusation that the disease came from parents cleared of all disease more than two years ago with its offspring never showing any symptoms of disease or death. One of the birds from that same clutch was tested and tested negative by the buyer. It would be impossible for infected parents to infect one bird or a clutch being fed by one syringe to not have the disease passed to ALL chicks in that clutch.


After the bird died and was diagnosed with Polyoma you stated that there were no other birds around. In a message dated November 30, 2014 you clearly state that you have two Parrotlets. These birds along with Lovebirds, cockatiels, and cockatoos are known carriers of many diseases and are usually asymptomatic. When the Eclectus died you denied ever making this statement about owning Parrotlets so I have included the screen capture.


One bird died and the other was healthy so why did you do a charge-back for two birds? You could have easily done a partial charge-back for the disputed amount. In the end the credit card issuer sided with us. Why would you attempt to roll the dice and attempt to enrich yourself an additional $1300 by doing what is called “friendly fraud” within the credit community? If the other bird was perfectly healthy, why would you do a charge-back on it?


You had a contract. You questioned its enforceability under UCC. I have seen contracts written on scrap paper that held up. A contract is pretty much a written instrument reflecting an agreement between two or more parties. This contract has already held up to test.


The contract clearly states to have the bird tested within 72 hours. This time frame is reasonable and protects both parties. The clock stops during that 72 hour period until the results are back. The contract protects the seller (us) because a bird newly infected with a disease at a buyer’s home would usually not show antibodies for diseases during that 72 hour period. It also protects the buyer from receiving a sick bird. You did not live up to your end of the agreement and put us in a situation where we were threatened, accounts were frozen, you attempted to have your credit issuer reimburse you for a bird that is alive and doing well, you then threatened us again that if we didn’t pay you “hush money” you would go on a bashing campaign. When we refused because of all of the above we did tell you we would pursue legal recourse; this is true. If you do a docket search you will see a trail of legal recourse that as breeders we’ve needed to pursue to make sure our reputation was intact and that persons trying to unjustly enrich themselves were forced to compensate us for damages.


What we have is a contract that was not adhered to. A timeline of death not consistent with Polyoma in an Eclectus. An admission of having other birds and then a recanting of this once the bird was diagnosed. Doing a charge-back on a bird that was perfectly healthy. A follow up demanding money which implied doing damage to reputation if not agreed to.


Anyone reading the above can reasonable come to the same conclusions that we have. The bird was not infected within our premises and the actions that followed were unethical and were a clear attempt of recovering money that you knew did not belong to you since the other bird was healthy. If you had simply followed the contract we would not be hashing this out in public. If the costs of doing these tests were prohibitive, then you should not have bought a bird.


I will save you the dignity of not posting the charge-back information or emails between us because my intent is not to make you look bad, but to defend my practices and let the readers decide who is reputable and who is not. I am not into internet fighting so this will be my only response. I have already copied relevant documentation.

 

[Anansi]

You guys are sanity savers, seriously, thank you. I'm going to step back from fb and let the proper authorities deal with this. If they side with her, so be it, but at least I know I didn't let them bully me into conceding. I'm not a confrontational person so this is giving me major anxiety!
Anansi, thank you for clarifying how the virus works for me. I'm going to have to read more because right now it sounds a little like Latin to me. I thought it could lie (lay?) dormant in a bird, possibly like Jack who tested negative although he was most likely exposed to the virus just like Raja. I probably am misinterpreting badly, I apologize.

You're welcome, Liz.

If Polyoma were laying dormant within him, (which I'm praying it isn't) I believe that would make him a carrier. Which would mean that he would be capable of infecting other birds even though he is not showing any clinical signs himself. It could also mean that the disease could become a threat to his health if ever he found his immune system compromised by another illness.

But that's the thing. I believe that, for the most part, the Polyoma test is more consistently accurate than those for PBFD and PDD.

 

[Doublete]

Wait... Nobody has answered he the male could possibly be negative. No matter who is to blame that is still my question.

That answers it a little. Would the test show if he was a carrier?